James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

With respect the issue raised was discussed in fair detail in the Seanad and on Second Stage. Amendment No. 3 as proposed would result in a free-standing requirement that remanded children would be kept separate from sentenced children in all circumstances. Section 88(8) of the existing Children Act 2001 deals with the issue of the separation of remand children and detention children where the remand centre is located in a children's detention school. The existing section 88(8) outlines an important principle that where children are remanded in a remand centre situated in a children's detention school, such children shall, as far as practicable and where it is in the interests of the child, be kept separate from and not allowed to associate with children in respect of whom a period of detention is being imposed. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to remove the reference to "as far as practicable and where it is in the interest of the child" from the section and would require complete separation of remand children and committal children in all instances, irrespective of whether this is possible operationally.

It should be noted that the existing children's detention schools in Oberstown tend to be full on most occasions with varying numbers of children on remand and serving a sentence at different times of the year depending on the demand for detention places from the courts system. In line with section 88(8) every effort is made to accommodate children in custody on remand in separate residential units from children who are serving a sentence of detention. This is an issue of professional assessment of the situation of each child and day-to-day operational management of the children's detention schools. However, in an environment of high demand for both remand places and places for children serving a sentence it would not be possible to keep remand children and committal children separate on all occasions. This would require a significant increase in detention accommodation. It would also result in new accommodation, currently being built on the Oberstown campus, being insufficient to cater for all children up to the age of 18, as is currently planned.

The need to meet the requirements of the proposed amendment could also undermine the existing policy in place in all circumstances of keeping male and female children in separate residential facilities. There are also circumstances where the separation of a remand child from committal children may not be in the child's best interests. In addition I have been advised that there are cases where a child is remanded in custody on one set of charges but serving a sentence of detention on another set of charges. This proposed amendment could also lead to a situation where a person would be in solitary confinement, being the only person in the place who is on remand. I do not believe that would be in the child's best interests. It was raised by Judge Michael Reilly in relation to the situation at St. Patrick's where 17-year-olds on remand were sometimes there on their own. That is a scary situation for a child to be in. I understand the idea behind Deputy Daly's proposed amendment and I concur with the sentiment, but the practicality and the practice of it could be detrimental to the best interests of a child.