Author: Jillian van Turnhout

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.

Posted on

Commencement Matter: Neuro-Rehabilitation Services Provision, 2 December 2015

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: The Minister of State is aware that I have been tracking the issue of neuro-rehabilitation services for several years now. Such services are essential to support recovery and prevent disability for people with acquired brain injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis and a range of other neurological conditions. Thousands of Irish people still cannot get the rehabilitation they need when they need it. They face a lifetime of unnecessary disability, which can prevent them from returning to work and regaining their independence. It is estimated that there are 25,000 patients in need of rehabilitation in Ireland.

I have raised this issue because I am concerned about the deficits that exist in this area such as, for example, with regard to community teams. Since the three-year national strategy was published and came into place, little or progress has been made to deliver on any of its recommendations. For example, nine neuro-rehabilitation teams are needed in the community, but just three partially staffed teams are currently in place. No new teams have been established since the strategy was published in 2011. On the basis of the guidelines set by the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine, our population means that 270 specialist inpatient beds are needed in this country. We currently have less than half of that number.

If we look at other rehabilitation services, we have a lack of longer-term rehabilitation supports, such as step-down units, transitional units and intensive home care packages, to allow people to go home after rehabilitation has come to an end. This means they end up in totally unsuitable facilities. For example, young people have to live in nursing homes, in acute hospital beds or in long-stay units with no ongoing rehabilitation. It is important to remember that people with neurological conditions need intensive therapy within a window of recovery. I know the Minister of State is aware of this. Those who are waiting to get specialist rehabilitation lose vital recovery time every day of their waiting periods. The National Policy and Strategy for the Provision of Neuro-Rehabilitation Services in Ireland 2011-2015 was published by the Department of Health and the HSE in December 2011. A joint HSE and Department of Health working group was established in 2013 tasked with the development of an implementation plan. Earlier this year, the HSE committed to releasing a draft implementation plan for consultation in December 2015. I now understand this will not be released until 2016, which is why I have tabled this matter. Separately, a model of care for specialist rehabilitation services is being developed by the national clinical programme for rehabilitation medicine. The draft of this model of care is being reviewed by the HSE following its submission in September 2015 and no date is available for its publication. Without the publication of the implementation plan for a neuro-rehabilitation strategy no money is being invested, no services are being put in place and thousands of people are not getting the rehabilitation they need. Yesterday, Mags Rogers of the Neurological Alliance of Ireland spoke about condemning people to live with an unnecessary disability. We are speaking about the vital window of recovery. As I have tracked this issue it has been a catalogue of delays, U-turns and no implementation plan. I have met many people in recent years whose quality of life would have been greatly improved if we could have intervened earlier. We have a strategy. Why do we not have a plan and why are we not implementing it?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: We had difficulty at the outset, which I encountered very quickly, apart from having no money which was the biggest difficulty of all, as there was a difference of opinion as to how it should be delivered. It is very difficult to say to one specialist that what he or she is saying is wrong and say to another specialist that he or she is right. There was a clear difference of opinion as to how it would be delivered. This is why the implementation plan and the national clinical programme are so important.

The report, National Policy and Strategy for the Provision of Neuro-Rehabilitation Services in Ireland 2011–2015, made a number of recommendations for services for people with rehabilitation needs, including clinical, therapeutic, social, vocational and community supports. Following the development of the report, the Health Service Executive established the rehabilitation medicine clinical programme. The scope of the programme covers the whole of the patient’s journey from self-management and prevention through to primary, secondary and tertiary care. This provides a national strategic and co-ordinated approach to a wide range of clinical services. The programme includes the standardisation of access to and delivery of high-quality, safe and efficient hospital services nationally as well as improved linkages with primary care services. This is where the dispute arose with regard to whether it was better to do it within the community or whether it should be attached to an acute hospital.

The rehabilitation medicine clinical programme is nearing completion of a model of care for the provision of specialist rehabilitation services in Ireland, which will be the basis for the delivery of the service. The HSE disability services division has a role in certain key aspects of neuro-rehabilitation services, primarily the provision of community-based therapy services and personal social services. The disability services division will use the recommendations of the value for money and policy review of disability services to focus on disability funded rehabilitation services and enable reconfiguration of existing provisions through the establishment of demonstration sites. Close links will be maintained with the rehabilitation medicine clinical programme to ensure there is no duplication of effort and that all initiatives receive optimal support. Demonstration sites have been identified by disability services and mapping has commenced.

Having regard to the foregoing details, it is not accurate to say that no element has been delivered. A national steering group, chaired by the Health Service Executive social care division, has been assigned the task of developing an implementation framework for the national policy and strategy for neuro-rehabilitation services. The steering group includes representation from the national clinical programmes for rehabilitation medicine and neurology, the Department of Health, primary care, therapy professions and the Neurological Alliance of Ireland. Once the implementation framework has been agreed by the steering group, it will then go for consultation to the wider stakeholder interest groups. Following consultation, the framework will be revised and will guide and oversee the reconfiguration and development of neuro-rehabilitation structures and services at national and local level. The HSE is very aware of the needs of people with neurological conditions – how could it not be – and will continue to work towards improved services, making best use of available resources.

The disability sector is now connecting, and yesterday I met Enable Ireland which could play a very big part, and we all know the other non-governmental agencies with a particular interest in this area. The new hospital in Dún Laoghaire is on its way and it will provide not only outreach therapies but additional beds. It should have been done ten years ago, and the Senator and I know this, but with regard to thrombolysis, while prevention in accident and emergency department has played a significant role, much more needs to be done.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I agree with the Minister of State. As she knows I have been tracking this issue since I entered the Seanad. With regard to the people living with acquired brain injuries, strokes, multiple sclerosis and a range of other neurological conditions, if we got in during the window of recovery, we would not be speaking about disabilities but recovery. I said no element has been delivered, but for those looking for services during that period, they are not in place. It is not good enough and we must do more. I appreciate what the Minister of State said. We should see the implementation plan. We must give people hope, and the services should be in place in the way they are needed whether in the community or in settings. The pathway will very much depend on need. I will continue to track the issue for the remaining weeks I am here because it is an issue close to my heart, because of my father and because I have met too many people who would not be suffering every day if we had been able to intervene earlier.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I believe some of it has been put in place, based on a personal family experience. There is not one of us who will not have had such an experience as we go through life in whatever form. This will have involved going to an accident and emergency department at 12 o’clock on a Saturday and walking out, having been discharged, at 12 o’clock that night.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: That is the window of recovery.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The difficulty is that it is like suicide in that we will never know how many people we divert from the path of disability. It is difficult to know. However, we need to treat differently those whom we do not divert. The implementation plan and strategy must be published as quickly as possible.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: On that we agree. The plan must be published.

Posted on

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012: Committee Stage; The Housing Crisis and Child Homelessness

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

Amendment No 53, Section 15:

An amendment to section 20 of the Principal Act to provide for the extension of the duration between rent reviews from 12 months to 24 months for a period of 4 years, after which the period will revert to 12 months.

***requirement on the part of the Landlord to justify the reasonableness of the rent increase***

While this amendment falls far short of the measures of rent certainty I would like to have seen introduced, for example rent increases that are in line with an external measurement like the Consumer Price Index suggested by Threshold, I absolutely welcome this amendment as a much needed and long overdue first.

The latest quarterly Daft Report was published today and shows that in the third quarter of 2015, rents rose nationwide by an average of 3.2%, which represents the largest 3 month jump in rents since 2007 while supply on the rental market, just 4,000 properties available to rent nationwide today and very few of which offer affordable family accommodation, at its tightest on record.

The current “monopolistic private rental market”, characterised by rapidly increasing rents and a complete dearth of housing supply is intrinsically linked to our spiralling homelessness and risk of homelessness crisis.

Minister, I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in the past. I only plan to speak on this grouping of amendments this afternoon.

I have a number of questions and I look forward to hearing your answers from the floor. I will also be happy to forward any of these questions to you in writing if they require time for further consideration.

In November 2014 homelessness agencies were reporting that 700 children were living in emergency accommodation. In twelve months, this figure has now grown to 1500. It is extremely likely that this number will continue to increase as:

  • supply continues to be constrained and there’s no indication of a step change in new supply, given the pipeline of sites that are development ready and with available finance ;
  • new homes recently announced (modular housing) will only serve to meet part of the back log;
  • the private rented sector is likely to remain attractive to those who can afford it, and those who cannot access homeownership- I.e. So called ‘young professionals.

Affordable family accommodation is therefore chronically under supplied.

Minister, do you have a figure for projected demand for emergency accommodation for families with children? What exactly are you planning for?

Setting aside numbers in emergency accommodation, research has shown that where homelessness among children increases, this is coupled with a rise in children living in unsuitable and/or overcrowded accommodation, sometimes sharing with other families, which parents view as preferable to presenting as homeless.

Minister, do you have an estimated figure for the number of children who are living in overcrowded accommodation? Has a study been done into this area of concern or is one planned?

I and many of the children’s rights organisations (such as ISPCC) following these issues, are deeply concerned at the immediate and the long term impacts for children who are placed in emergency accommodation.

Temporary accommodation (whether hostel , emergency or any other forms of temporary accommodation) can all adversely impact on children. In many cases the lack of stability and uncertainty is deeply worrying for children and this is reflected in anecdotal evidence from the ISPCC Childline service.

It affects children’s ability to play due to lack of space, and often quiet spaces to study are impossible to find. At its worst, lack of natural light and outdoor spaces are also likely to affect development. Children report being extremely stressed, and often hide this stress and worry from their parents, who are also often struggling.

Emergency hotel accommodation is the most concerning type of accommodation for homeless children. It should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Right now, it is increasingly being used as ‘the norm’ because of a severe lack of purpose built temporary accommodation for families. I am genuinely concerned about child protection issues, safety issues, security issues s well as the range of developmental impacts as set out briefly above.

Minister, has TUSLA been involved in assessing the suitability of hotels /hostels that are housing families with children? If so, have they determined that some forms of accommodation are unsuitable? Who determines whether there may be child protection risks?

Are individuals working in hotels where homeless children are placed Garda vetted? If not, why not? I appreciate Minister that hotel staff are not normally vetted but the placing of children in hotels as a formal State intervention to the homelessness crisis changes the said hotel’s official usage. The children are living there, playing there, growing up there. On this basis, they could be a place of interest to predators. It is absolutely essential that urgent steps are taken to ensure all children in emergency accommodation are safe.

In other jurisdictions, with similar homelessness levels, emergency accommodation is used as an exception and then for no more than six weeks. How many children have lived in emergency accommodation for more than six weeks and Minister do you agree that this is unacceptable?

Are wraparound services available for all families in emergency accommodation, and what steps are being taken to work with families to help them secure and keep a tenancy elsewhere?

Minister have officials from your department been assigned to inspect emergency accommodation and its suitability for children on an ongoing basis? For example, to assess the safety and security of shared and communal areas and the availability of safe spaces to play.

Have you made any requirements of providers of emergency accommodation to make the accommodation suitable places for children? Has TUSLA been involved in advising on suitability?

Finally, I have a few questions concerning the new modular housing project for Dublin:

  • Will the design of modular housing reflect the fact that it is to be purpose built accommodation for homeless families?
  • Will the design meet the needs of children, and will there be sufficient space for children to play?
  • Will TUSLA and other organisations be consulted on the design of this accommodation, and if so, when?
Posted on

Seanad Order of Business: MRI Scanners for Children

Senator Jillian Van Turnhout: I wish to raise the issue of the MRI scanner for children in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin and the associated waiting list for children. The scanner has broken down, and I believe this is not an irregular occurrence. It broke down at least one week ago but no contingency plan is in place to manage the care and assessment of children. My understanding is that there are only two MRI scanners for children in Ireland with the appropriate medical support, one in Crumlin and the other in the hospital in Temple Street. Children require a general anaesthetic. The result is that the waiting list in Crumlin currently stands at 28 months and I do not know the length of the list for Temple Street – perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. I understand the list is divided between the two hospitals.

I wish to share a case with the Minister of State. Obviously, I will not disclose the name of the person on the floor of the Seanad, but I am happy to provide it to the Minister of State. It is very illustrative of why this is such a critical issue.

One young boy, who is now six years of age, when aged three had symptoms including very poor balance, being tired and lethargic and the development of a tick in his head. His parents were able to afford to bring him to a neurologist on a private basis. The neurologist advised them that the child probably had flat feet and questioned whether something was happening in the home which caused him to develop the tick. Thankfully, the mother insisted on the scan. The neurologist was reluctant to put the child forward saying the child was not an urgent or high priority case. Given that there are only two MRI scanners, at that time the waiting list was eight months.

The child went for an MRI scan over two and a half years ago on a Friday morning and the parents were advised that they could receive the results in about four to six weeks. They were in the recovery room 30 minutes later and a team of medical staff surrounded the bed. The team said a brain tumour had been found and a biopsy needed to be done, the earliest opportunity for which was Monday. The first test was done on the biopsy on Monday and the parents were told there was an 80% likelihood that the child had cancer, but the results were inconclusive and a second, more intrusive, test needed to be done, and was done two weeks later. The further test found that it was a low-grade tumour which required regular monitoring but, thankfully, was not cancerous.

These parents initially brought their child for three-month checks, and then tests on a six-month basis to establish a baseline and ensure they could monitor the situation. At a six-month scan in April 2014, they were told that they were not allowed to leave the hospital as the child had developed hydrocephalus. He was transferred by ambulance to Temple Street, monitored overnight and had surgery the next morning. The parents advise me there were no obvious signs in the lead-up to that test in April 2014 and nothing made them feel that the test would be any different.

The child has scans every six months. Last Friday he was due to have his next six-month scan, but the parents were told on Tuesday last week that the machine was not working and it would take two weeks to get a part from Germany, which is mind-boggling – I would get on a plane and get the part. They were advised that the new appointment would most likely be in early 2016. Thankfully, because of the pressure the child’s mother applied and, I imagine, the debate we are having here today, she received a call yesterday to say the child would have an appointment early next week.

I am thinking of all the other parents out there. This is a low priority, non-urgent case involving regular monitoring. How many other children are low priority? How many other parents have been told that their children’s cases are not urgent and, therefore, they are on a waiting list? As I said, the waiting list is very long. Why are MRI scanners for children not in operation seven days a week? It would give parents assurance if an MRI scanner did not show anything of concern. A wait of 28 months to find out whether something is wrong is unacceptable.

The parent who contacted me is obviously concerned for her child, but in her generosity is extremely concerned not only for the children lucky enough to be in the system but those on the impossibly long waiting list. I have been told by a senior source in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, that children requiring a general anaesthetic, usually those aged under 12 years, face a waiting list of 28 months.

Over the past two days I have discussed this issue with a number of friends. I could not believe the number who shared frightening cases they knew directly or of friends’ children who are on the waiting list to ensure their children can get MRI scans. Over the past three and a half years waiting lists have increased from eight to 28 months. Even eight months is far too long, but the parents to whom I referred were told their child’s case was non-urgent and not a priority, it was likely the child has flat feet and something was happening at home. They were able to afford to go an alternative route, but I want to know the situation regarding the MRI scanner for children in Ireland and the length of the waiting list.

Deputy Joe McHugh: thank the Senator for raising this issue. I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who is elsewhere on Government business. I want to reassure the House about the MRI scanner in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. I understand some concerns may have been raised last week about whether the machine is in working order. I am happy to advise the House that the MRI scanner was fully operational last week, other than on Friday, 13 November, when scans were postponed to allow for repairs to be carried out on the machine. The repair on Friday affected five patientSLOTS and these scans have been rescheduled for this week. MRI scans recommenced fully on Saturday. Appropriate contingency plans were put in place by Crumlin hospital, with Temple Street hospital, for any emergency cases that might have arisen on the Friday while the machine was being repaired. On the broader issue of waiting times for MRI scans at Crumlin hospital, the capacity to provide these scans is, as the Senator pointed out, under pressure. Referral patterns reflect the tertiary paediatric nature of services provided in the hospital. The oncology specialty generates the largest portion of MRI activity. Crumlin hospital also provides the only paediatric cardiac MRI service in Ireland. The unit takes consultant referrals from local maternity hospitals and from hospitals nationally where paediatric MRI with general anaesthesia for younger patients is required. Demand for MRI services is steadily increasing from all specialties. In this context, particular attention has been paid to optimising existing capacity and managing demand through clinical triage. MRI capacity at Crumlin hospital has increased in recent years and is at almost 2,000 scans per annum. This compares with 1,600 scans in 2011. The MRI service now operates for 37 hours per week and staff are available to provide lunchtime cover as demand requires it. In addition, a service is provided from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays, which is suitable for those patients who do not require anaesthesia or sedation. This has improved access and decreased the waiting list.

To maximise capacity there is a strong focus on active local management of appointments, with the result that did not attend, DNA, rates are extremely low. Triage is also a key element in managing demand and preventing inappropriate referrals. Under the triage process, between six and 14 referrals weekly are triaged as urgent and these are dealt with as soon as possible. Unfortunately, however, patients from specialties other than oncology and cardiology who require a general anaesthetic and who are categorised as routine experience long waiting times of between 15 and 27 months. I emphasise that the Government sees this as unacceptable and acknowledges the difficulties which delays cause for patients and their families.

Crumlin developed a business case for resources to increase capacity and submitted it for consideration in the context of the current service planning process, which is still ongoing. The HSE and the Department of Health continue to work together to address waiting times for diagnostic services, including MRI, and to ensure appropriate collection and reporting of MRI waiting times.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I thank the Minister of State. Obviously, somebody is telling somebody untruths because why would those at Crumlin hospital have telephoned the mother I mentioned on Tuesday and said the machine would be down for two weeks? For me, there are serious questions to answer. I am not questioning the veracity of what the Minister of State said but I am concerned that the truth is not being told. How do we actually know this is urgent? The Minister of State spoke about the routine waiting list of between 15 and 27 months. My reference to a 28-month waiting list is probably more accurate. I know the Minister of State is a parent and that he understands what it is like for parents to worry about a child. I welcome the fact that the Government sees this as unacceptable. I will continue to monitor it because I find it totally and utterly unacceptable that we are asking parents to wait this length of time to be reassured or to ensure their children get the correct and appropriate treatment. We know the importance of early intervention and prevention, particularly in the lives of children, and we need to increase the pressure in respect of this matter. I hope the business case will be put through and we will ensure children are seen in a timely manner. The case I have raised today was routine and the neurologist did not wish to refer it. How many other children are like this?

Deputy Joe McHugh: I appreciate the Senator raising this extremely important matter. I do not doubt that her contact with the parent concerned will have highlighted to her the obvious distress the family went through. Statistics are statistics and, unfortunately, demand for the MRI scans increased from 1,600 in 2011 to 2,000 per annum at present. The Minister is not using statistics as an excuse. However, he will use them to try to improve the service and I have no doubt he will ensure that, where possible, resources will be directed to where they are needed. I will certainly convey the Senator’s message to the Minister and I thank her for raising the issue.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I thank the Minister of State.

Posted on

Press Statement: Children First Bill: Calls time on physical punishment of children

Press Statement 11 November 2015

Children First Bill: Calls time on physical punishment of children

***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***

Today, Wednesday 11 November 2015, An Taoiseach Enda Kenny and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Dr James Reilly TD, heralded the final stages of the Children First Bill through the Dáil, thus concluding its passage through the Oireachtas. Independent Senator and children’s rights advocate, Jillian van Turnhout warmly welcomes the completion of the Children First Bill, which effectively calls time on the physical punishment of children.

She said “there must never be a defence for violence against children. I am honoured to have championed and secured the effective ban on the physical punishment of children in Ireland. The Children First Act will put child welfare and protection on a statutory footing.  It will solidify good intentions. As part of this legislation I brought forward an amendment to abolish the archaic common law defence of “reasonable chastisement” and finally vanquish it to the realms of history.”

“The defence of “reasonable chastisement” is not an Irish invention; it came to us from English common law. Through its colonial past, England has been responsible for rooting this legal defence in over 70 countries and territories throughout the world.  In this action being taken today, the Government is putting children first and providing leadership that will hopefully give confidence to other countries across the globe, including our nearest neighbours, to protect children from violence.”

“Why as a society do we accept that we even have to debate whether it is okay to hit someone? Let alone when that someone is smaller than us and probably doesn’t understand why they are being hit?”
“I fully agree with Minister Reilly that the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement is a tangible and practical manifestation of children’s rights and I am very proud of the role I have played in securing it.”

-ENDS-

Notes for the Editor:
Children First Bill, Report Stage, 21 October 2015:jillianvanturnhout.ie/childrenfirstreportstage
Children First Bill, Committee Stage, 23 September 2015:  jillianvanturnhout.ie/children-first-bill-corporal-punishment

For More Information, Please Contact:
Senator Jillian van Turnhout,
Leader of the Independent Group (Taoiseach’s Nominees)
Phone: 01 6183375
Mobile: 0872333784
e-mail: jillian.vanturnhout@oireachtas.ie

 

Posted on

Marriage Bill 2015 Amendment re Marriage Age at 18, 21 October 2015

Amendment proposed by Senator Jillian van Turnhout to abolish the possibility of a court ordered exemption to 18 years as the minimum legal age to marry.
22 October 2015

Copy of Amendment proposed below this speech

Speech on 22 October 2015 by Senator Jillian van Turnhout to propose amendment
My amendment seeks to abolish the possibility of a court ordered exemption to 18 years as the minimum legal age to marriage. As I emphasised on Second Stage on Tuesday last, my amendment stems from my concern about the exemption that can and is being granted by the Circuit Court in Ireland to allow children under the age of 18 enter into marriage. The Minister will be familiar with my concerns since they were the subject of a motion tabled by Senator Ivana Bacik and the Labour Party, and which I seconded, in June 2014.

The exemption to the ordinary legal minimum age of 18 years for entry into a contract of marriage is provided through section 31 and 33 of the Family Law Act 1995 and was more recently retained in section 2(2) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

We know that the exemption is being applied.  On the afternoon of our Motion the Minister of State had advised the House that between 2004 and 2013 almost 400 parties to marriages in Ireland were under the age of 19.

More specifically, according to CSO data kindly compiled by the Oireachtas Library and Research service in advance of our debate, 28 marriages registered in Ireland in 2012 involved a bride or groom or both who were under 18 years. In 21 of these marriages the bride was 16 or 17 years of age and the groom was 18 years or over. In 4 the groom was 16 or 17 and the bride was 18 years or over. And in the remaining 3 marriages both the bride and the groom were 17 years of age. Both children entering into the legal contract of marriage.

I find this quite remarkable and entirely undesirable in the context of the State’s duty to protect childhood.

Deciding to marry is a very serious matter, with potentially life-long implications. The obligations and responsibilities that arise from marriage are onerous.

It is ironic and seems inappropriate that we would trust children to make this decision when we prevent underage people from making other decisions. For instance, unless a person is married, he or she must be 18 or over in order to make a valid will.

Notably, you had to be 18 or over to enter into a civil partnership, and there is no provision made for exceptions.

A person under 18 also has limited capacity to contract. A contract with a person under the age of 18 cannot be enforced unless it is for ‘necessaries’ – items that are needed for the child’s basic sustenance (as opposed to luxury items) – or it is a beneficial contract of service. So a child’s capacity to enter into a simple contract or will is limited; yet we would allow a child under the age of 18 to take the equally if not more profound decision to marry.

International research demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between the age of marriage and the chances of divorce. Of course, lots of people marry young and stay together for life; but the odds are against them.  One study suggests, for instance, that a person who marries aged 25 is half as likely to divorce as a person who married aged 20.

Ireland is bound by a number of international human rights laws and standards, the provisions of which are completely incompatible with child marriage. For example:

  • International Bill of Rights.
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  • CEDAW (which explicitly prohibits child marriage)
  • Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.

More recently in September 2013, Ireland, along with its fellow EU Member States, supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution on Strengthening efforts to prevent and eliminate child, early and forced marriage: challenges, achievements, best practice, and implementation gaps.

Minister, it’s such a glaring contradiction that we in Ireland speak out against child marriage in countries such as India, Nigeria, Malawi, Iraq, Nepal, Ethiopia and Bangladesh, while our statue books still allow for exemptions to the normal marriage age, which worse still fails to specify a minimum age for such an exception.

This is not just a question of child marriage. The exemption also raises concerns around the scope for coercion and forced marriages of children…here in Ireland, which again seems totally baffling when we consider our reaction to the horrific incidents of forced child marriages internationally (for example, Boko Haram).

Applications for exemptions are made to the Circuit Court in private. Senator Bacik made an important point about this in the debate of our Motion. There is no public record of the application or the arguments put forward in support of the application. There are no guidelines on the criteria for granting the exemption. Rather the standard language of section 33 gives the court wide discretion.  And, worryingly, there is no provision for minors to be legally represented at the hearing or for the HSE and child protection authorities to be notified.

Our Motion specifically referenced the criticism levied by Justice McMenamin in the High Court in a judgment in June 2013 in a case concerning an “arranged” marriage.

The case concerned the annulment of a marriage between a 16 year old girl and a 29 year old man on the basis that the girl lacked capacity to give true consent in the first instance.

Justice McMenamin felt the case raised concerns of such magnitude that it warranted a general comment about the danger of the legal loophole for children.

He noted that “in certain circumstances such marriage exemptions may give rise to significant child welfare issues” and queried whether the HSE should be put on notice of such applications in order to inquire into the protection and welfare circumstances of the child concerned.

As the legislature we must provide guidance for the courts to implement statutory provisions as they are intended.

Or Minister, we can lead by example and remove the statutory provision currently allowing minors to marry.

When our motion was debated in June 2014 we were told that a small interdepartmental group would be established. I have not heard anything about it since. I appreciate the importance of today and the historic occasion that it is. As we are in the last few months here, I have tabled this amendment because it is an issue that is close to my heart. As I have said, I will not press the amendment but I wanted the issue to be raised and I wanted the Minister’s officials to hear the reasons we must address this gap for children. There is no lower age for this exemption, it is all done in the Circuit Court in private. We must protect children. Without representation, a decision can be made about their lives, a decision that we all take extremely seriously is what makes today so important.

Amendment Proposed

SECTION 7
On page 6, immediately after line 29, insert the following new section:

“Removal of court exemption to impediment on ground of age
(1) In this section “the Act of 1995” means the Family Law Act 1995.
(2) The Act of 1995 is amended by –

(a) the deletion of section 31(1)(b), and
(b) the deletion of section 33.

(3) Section 2 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 is amended by the substitution of the following for paragraph (c) of subsection 2 –

“(c) one or both of the parties to the intended marriage will be under the age of 18 years on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage,”.

(4) This section shall not apply to a marriage in respect of which, prior to the enactment of this section, a court has made an order under section 33 of the Act of 1995.”

Posted on

Press Statement: Senator van Turnhout welcomes abolition of defence of reasonable chastisement

Press Statement 21 October 2015
Senator van Turnhout welcomes abolition of defence of reasonable chastisement

***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***

The archaic common law defence “reasonable chastisement” of children finally vanquished to the realms of history

“Whether it is slapping or tapping, shoving or pushing, hitting or beating, the invisible line between “reasonable chastisement” and simply physical violence against children has finally been removed.”

“I was appointed to the Seanad by An Taoiseach Enda Kenny back in 2011 on the basis of my children’s rights work. One of the first objectives I set for my tenure was for Ireland to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement. On 23 September 2015, I tabled an amendment to the Children First Bill to this effect. Following an anxious wait until today, an historic day for children’s rights in Ireland and for me personally, through a joint amendment with Government we have successfully amended the Children First Bill to secure the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement.”

“There must never be a defence for violence against children. I am honoured to have championed and secured the effective ban on the physical punishment of children in Ireland.”

-ENDS-

Notes for the Editor:

Children First Bill, Report Stage, 21 October 2015: jillianvanturnhout.ie/childrenfirstreportstage

Children First Bill, Committee Stage, 23 September 2015:  jillianvanturnhout.ie/children-first-bill-corporal-punishment

For More Information, Please Contact:                                                                

Senator Jillian van Turnhout,                                                                                                 Leader of the Independent Group (Taoiseach’s Nominees)                                                   Phone: 01 6183375                                                                                                                   e-mail: jillian.vanturnhout@oireachtas.ie

 

Posted on

Children First Bill, Report Stage: Corporal Punishment

Children First Report Stage with Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, James Reilly TD, Wednesday 21 October 2015

Speech by Senator Jillian van Turnhout
Video of speech: youtu.be/BxrkLOl16jA
Video of full debate: youtube.com/watch?v=VqixbeSPUEw

Minister, you are always welcome to the Seanad but I have to admit that today you are particularly welcome.

One of the first objectives I set when I became a member of the Seanad in 2011 was for Ireland to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement. When the Seanad took Committee Stage of the Children First Bill on 23 September I tabled an amendment, with thanks to the expert help of Dr Fergus Ryan, to the same purpose as the amendment before us today.   You said “If I have my way we will have this defence of “reasonable chastisement” removed from the Statute Book.”

And here we are today. Minister, I am extremely aware and thankful for all the work done by you personally, by officials and advisors across Government cooperating and working together to bring about the amendment tabled here before us. I would like to extend my particular thanks to the officials of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I would also like to thank my Assistant and Researcher Amy McArdle, for all her work and support. I was also heartened at Committee Stage to receive cross party and independents’ support. Thank you.

On 23 September I cited a number of international and national experts and I don’t intend to repeat myself today but ask that my words at Committee Stage be included in any documenting of how Ireland brought about the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement. Over the years there have been notable voices to the fore calling for the Ireland to take this step.

Of special note I must thank:

  • the Children’s Rights Alliance, in particular Tanya Ward and Maria Corbett who have been steadfast in their support and in ensuring the support of a wide range of children and youth organisations;
  • the ISPCC, driven by the experience of children calling into their ChildLine service, have always prioritised ending a culture of violence against children in Ireland.
  • the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, Professor Geoffrey Shannon who has, through his reports, repeatedly called on us as legislators to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement.

For the global leadership they have provided at an International level I want to thank :

  • Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the Secretary General on Violence against Children;
  • Peter Newell of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children;
  • and Ireland’s academics who have shone a light on Ireland’s international obligations, in particular Prof Ursula Kilkelly, UCC.

I also must thank Jenny and Michael Hassett, my Mum and Dad. Since 23 September I have had a lot of time to reflect and probe why I am so passionate about this issue. It is of course rooted in my own childhood. My memories brought me back to a particular primary school teacher who would on occasion whack someone in our class across the ears with a ruler. I remember telling my Mum and she said that if I was ever hit I was to stand up calmly, walk out of the class, go to the office of the school secretary and ask for my parents to be called to come and collect me. I was lucky. My parents were ‘ahead of their time’, they respected me as an independent rights holder. Thanks Mum for being here today to share this momentous occasion.

Why do we as a society accept that we even debate if and when it is okay to hit someone? Let alone when that someone is smaller than us and probably doesn’t understand why they are being hit? Very often when we discuss the issue of corporal punishment, violence against children or so called ‘slapping’ you can almost feel an invisible line appear in people’s heads about their tolerance level. They say, “you know I am only talking about a tap not a thump, a slap not a belt, a smack not a whack”. And of course this issue is wrapped up in how we were raised – all too often the knee-jerk reaction “it never did me any harm” is heard. I would add “it never did you any good either”!

This invisible line is extremely subjective and it leaves children vulnerable. When someone hits a child it is not from a rational place. The decision is made in a heightened emotional state, when we are stressed, when we are tired and let’s face it least able to engage sound and reasoned judgement.   The invisible line gets blurred. In extreme cases it gets rubbed out completely.One way or the other, the existence of the invisible line means children are all too often exposed to an escalation of violence.

The excuse “I got a terrible fright when she ran out on the road and so I just hit her to show how wrong it is” is used in relation to children. We all get frights in our life but my first reaction is not to hit someone – so why do we culturally accept that it is okay when it is a child? A caller to the Last Word on TodayFM summed it up by saying “my Grandmother has Alzheimer’s and she is as likely to walk out into traffic or harm herself. Should I use that as a reason to slap her?”

Of course I understand the importance of supporting parents in the vital role they play in their child’s life.   We need to ensure parents have access to supports and resources when they need them. We know that the majority of parents in Ireland already believe that we have a ban on corporal punishment. However, I know that some parents are anxious about this change in the law and I would like to reassure them that we all want the best for their children, for the children of Ireland. To this end, I would like to take this moment to thank Laura Haugh of Mummy pages for their unequivocal support of this amendment.

I would also like to point to an excellent book for any parents who are anxious, developed by a leading advocate in this area, Paul Gilligan. His book “Raising Emotionally Healthy Children” is a great resource that provides lots of advice and support.

By abolishing the defence of reasonable chastisement we are giving life to the Children’s Amendment in our Constitution, Article 42A.1 states: The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights. We know that corporal punishment:

  1. Can cause serious harm to children;
  2. Teaches children that violence is an acceptable way of solving conflicts;
  3. Is ineffective as a means of discipline and there are positive ways to teach, correct or discipline children which are better for the child’s development and health;
  4. Makes it more difficult to protect children from severe abuse if some forms of violence are legitimate.

With this amendment today we are ensuring that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.

This ancient defence of “reasonable chastisement” is not an Irish invention; it came to us from English common law. Through its colonial past, England has been responsible for rooting this legal defence in over 70 countries and territories throughout the world. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the “reasonable punishment” defence still allows parents and some other carers to justify common assault on children; in Scotland there is another variation – the defence of “justifiable assault”.

In this action being taken today, the Government is putting children first and providing leadership that will hopefully give confidence to the Government at Westminster, the devolved UK administrations and other countries across the globe to discard these archaic and disreputable defences and give full respect to children’s dignity.

We will be the 20th EU Member State to effectively ban corporal punishment in our jurisdiction and in doing so I hope the remaining European Governments will follow. Irish law is being brought into step with parents, children’s rights advocates and international best practice.  With this amendment we have a way to unite and agree that all citizens are equal.

There must never be a defence for violence against children. I am honoured to have championed and secured the effective ban on the physical punishment of children in Ireland.

 

Amendment

In page 5, line 12, to delete “and to provide for related matters.” and substitute the following:

“to provide for the abolition of the common law defence of reasonable chastisement and, for that purpose, to amend the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997; and to provide for related matters.”.

—Government & Senator Jillian van Turnhout.

In page 20, after line 21, to insert the following:

“PART 5

MISCELLANEOUS

Abolition of defence of reasonable chastisement

The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 24:

“24A. (1) The common law defence of reasonable chastisement is abolished.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of proceedings brought against a person for an offence consisting in whole or in part of any act done by the person before the commencement of section 28 of the Children First Act 2015, whether those proceedings were brought before, on or after such commencement.

(3) This section shall not affect the operation of section 24.”.”.

—Government & Senator Jillian van Turnhout.

Posted on

Questions to Minister for Health: Tax on Sugar Sweetened Drinks

Questions to Minister for Health Leo Varadkar TD, Minister Lynch and HSE in advance of Health and Children Committee meeting 6 October 2015

Letter from Senator van Turnhout to Minister Noonan: Letter to Minister for Finance TaxSSD by Jillian van Turnhout

Senator Jillian Van Turnhout
To ask the Minister for Health if he supports proposals for an additional tax on sugar sweetened drinks in the upcoming Budget and the use of a portion of the funds to promote children’s health initiatives; what actions he has taken to convince the Minister for Finance to implement these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Response:
The Minister for Health has recently written to the Minister for Finance recommending the introduction of a 20% levy on sugar sweetened drinks (SSDs) in the proposed Budget for 2016.  The rationale behind this measure is on the grounds of increasing evidence that consumption of SSDs is related to the risk of obesity and that such beverages are a source of high energy yet little or no nutritional value.  The Minister supports the introduction of such a levy as one of a number of public health measures in tackling obesity.  In addition, the Department is currently developing a new Obesity Policy and Action Plan, which will address prevention, treatment and research.

Posted on

Questions to Minister for Health: Early Supported Discharge programmes for stroke survivors

Questions to Minister for Health Leo Varadkar TD, Minister Lynch and HSE in advance of Health and Children Committee meeting 6 October 2015

Senator Jillian van Turnhout
To ask the Minister for Health if he will ensure that Early Supported Discharge programmes for stroke survivors are expanded by the HSE in 2016; what other actions he intends taking to develop community rehabilitation services for stroke survivors; whether he is concerned that the implementation plan for the National Neuro-Rehabilitation Policy and Strategy 2011-2015 has not yet been finalised with just four months left in its four-year lifespan; and if he will make a statement on these matters.

Response:
Currently there are 3 Early Supported Discharge (ESD) teams in Dublin North, Dublin South West and Galway respectively. These teams though small are functioning well.

The programme plans to increase the ESD teams over the coming years in larger urban areas first and then progress this expansion to less urban areas with a modified team to serve these areas, however resources are currently unavailable for this.

The National Policy & Strategy for Neuro-Rehabilitation 2011-2015 recognises the various possible challenges and the working group proposed an initial 3 year implementation plan.  Since the initial estimate of a 3 year implementation plan, the HSE has seen significant changes with the development of the Hospital Groups and the Community Healthcare Organisation configuration. This has changed the landscape within which services are to be configured to support implementation of this much needed strategy.

Currently, a steering group led by the HSE Social Care Division with representation from the National Clinical Programmes for Rehabilitation Medicine and Neurology, Department of Health, Primary Care, Therapy Professions & Neurological Alliance of Ireland has been assigned the task of developing an implementation framework for the National Strategy & Policy for Neuro-rehabilitation services. This group is working on finalising an implementation framework which will be released for consultation in Q4 2015.

The work of the steering group is overseen by an operational lead and a clinical lead with the group proposing a 2 phased approach to implementation which will begin at CHO level and expand to inpatient specialist rehabilitation services with connectivity across all service delivery sites.

The Model of Care of the National Clinical Programme for Rehabilitation Medicine (NCPRM) will be one of the primary reference points for the implementation of the Neuro-Rehabilitation strategy, given the importance in ensuring consistency and clarity in pathways to and across services.  The model of care of the NCPRM will provide a framework for the design and delivery of specialist rehabilitation services in the context of a strategy that addresses the broad continuum of services and supports required by those with neuro-rehabilitative needs.

The Model of Care for the NCPRM, which is currently being finalised post public consultation, details the role, function & benefits of these care teams, in line with the recommendations contained within the National Strategy & Policy for Neuro-rehabilitation Services in Ireland 2011-2015. This model of care proposes a 3 tiered model of specialist rehabilitation services namely complex specialist tertiary services, specialist in-patient rehabilitation units & community based specialist neuro-rehabilitation teams.

Both the National Clinical Programme for Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Policy & Strategy for Neuro-rehabilitation propose a needs-led service that meets the rehabilitative needs of people at acute, post-acute and community levels of people at all stages of the lifecycle who may benefit from medical, physical, cognitive, psychological and/or social Neuro-Rehabilitation service provision.

In this regard, it is not condition specific. While those who have suffered a stroke will be within the scope of this policy, services will not be exclusively for stroke survivors.