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

I will make one point because the Deputy keeps mentioning prison. The point of this Bill is that children will not go to prison. It is a detention centre that has a different ethos very much focused on education and rehabilitation whereas the adult prison system has an element of restorative justice and punishment about it.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert the words “and may be less” into the substituted section 149(1) as provided for at section 8 of the Bill. As I have already stated in respect of amendment No. 5, section 149(1) implicitly makes provision for the period of detention imposed on a child to be less than that imposed upon an adult. The only limit being imposed by section 149(1) is that the period of detention imposed on a child by a court shall not be more than the period of detention or imprisonment that could be imposed on an adult. This does not mean that a lesser period of detention cannot be imposed on the child.

I refer to section 96(4) of the Act providing for the powers of the court in respect of child offenders. It provides that the penalty imposed on a child for an offence should be no greater than that which would be appropriate in the case of an adult who commits an offence of the same kind, and may be less. The Bill is not proposing to amend section 96(4) in any way.

I do not consider the words proposed as necessary, as section 149(1) implicitly makes provision for a lesser period to be imposed on a child. I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Regarding adding the words "The Court shall have regard to the age, level of maturity, best interests of the child and the principle of detention as a last resort in determining the nature of any penalty imposed", the principles proposed in the amendment are already inherent in the Children Act 2001. I refer to Part 9 of the Act, which provides for the powers of courts in terms of child offenders. In particular, section 96 provides for the principles relating to the exercise of criminal proceedings over children. In Part 9, section 96(3) provides that a court may take into consideration as mitigating factors a child’s age and level of maturity in determining the nature of any penalty imposed unless the penalty is fixed by law. Section 96(5) provides that when dealing with a child charged with an offence, a court shall have due regard to the child's best interests, the interests of the victim of the offence and the protection of society. Section 96(2) of the principal Act provides that a period of detention should be imposed only as a measure of last resort. Amendment No. 6, as proposed, relates to principles such as a lesser period of detention than an adult being imposed on a child and the court having regard to the age, maturity and best interests of the child and the principle of detention as a last resort. These are already clearly provided for in the Act in section 96, which sets out the principles to be applied by a court when exercising criminal jurisdiction over children, so I am not accepting amendment No. 6.