Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the National Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027. I welcome its attempt to address youth crime in an holistic, multi-agency and proactive way, focusing on early intervention and preventative work. This type of work, although effective, is often overlooked and the Government has a history of only addressing issues after they arise instead of putting the supports in place to effect real and meaningful societal change that would prevent such issues in the first place. This Government, as well as successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments, has often failed in making proactive policy decisions, forcing a reactive approach to almost every area of policy. It constantly fails to consider the fact that steps and measures can often be put in place to avoid such issues and situations. The mica issue in my constituency of Donegal is a prime example of the detrimental effects of reactive rather than proactive and preventative policy approaches, as was the National Youth Justice Strategy 2008-2010, which focused solely on children who already had some contact with the criminal justice system.

Early intervention and preventative work such as family support is important. I support the strategy's focus on diversion, prevention and early intervention, underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Youth detention has a profoundly negative impact on young people's mental and physical well-being, education and employment. As such, I agree that detention should only be considered as a last resort. Literature on longitudinal health effects of youth incarceration suggests that any incarceration during adolescence or young adulthood is associated with worse general health, severe functional limitations, stress-related illnesses such as hypertension, and higher rates of depression and obesity during adulthood. Economists have shown that formerly detained young persons have reduced success in the labour market and educational researchers have found that detained young persons will face significant challenges returning to school after they leave detention. Of the children detained in Oberstown in the first quarter of 2019, 23% had a diagnosed learning disability, and those were only the ones who got diagnosed. There is credible and significant research that suggests that the experience of detention may make it more likely that young persons will continue to engage in delinquent behaviour and that the detention experience may increase the odds that they will recidivate. Congregating delinquent young persons together negatively affects their behaviour and increases their chances of re-offending. Detention pulls them deeper into the juvenile and criminal justice system and can also slow or interrupt the natural process of ageing out of delinquency. The negative effects are endless. At best, detained young persons are physically and emotionally separated from the families and communities that are most invested in their recovery and success.

A serious concern of mine, which is shared by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, is the suggestion that Garda youth diversion projects target children aged between eight and 11 years for preventative measures on the basis of their possible future criminal involvement.

I find this suggestion very worrying and I believe it would be neither an effective nor a welcome strategy. To label children as young as eight years of age as potential criminals is not only extremely damaging but could potentially serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing a divide and resentment due to its accusatory nature, rather than an effective preventive measure. How can we create a society of mutual trust while forcing such serious and damning labels on children so young? This is the wrong approach and I urge the Minister of State to completely review and reconsider this strategy.

As the Irish Penal Reform Trust stated:

We are acutely aware, from both research and practice, that labelling children as ‘criminal’ or ‘offender’ creates additional risk factors for the child and can further drive them into long-term offending behaviour. We are further concerned by the inclusion of any initiative to support children as young as 8 within a Justice-led strategy, and we believe there are more appropriately placed social and educational services that could offer meaningful supports to these children and their families.

Although I agree we should be engaging young people at risk before they enter the justice system, there is a way to do this through communities and through schools without the need for targeting individuals or groups. The importance of positive participation in community life cannot be underestimated. I have seen in my community of Killybegs the profound impact community participation has on young people and how much this participation shapes them throughout adolescence. The Minister said "it takes a village to raise a child" and I agree with him on that. However, we need additional funding and resources for young people and youth work in my constituency and nationally. I strongly support the National Youth Council Ireland's #YouthWorkChangesLives campaign. I hope this need for funding is addressed in next week’s budget, as it is sorely required.

Most importantly, youth justice policy, like all policies relating to young people, should be informed by the voices of young people. These voices need to be heard and respected if we truly want to make positive and progressive changes in this country. That is vitally important. I wonder sometimes whether the Department of Justice is the appropriate place for a youth diversion policy like this one. The Department of Justice, in my experience, has focused on the protection of the State. It is not focused on young people and the need to protect them. That is what is vitally important. We should be devising policies to protect young people. I would like responsibility for this strategy to be moved to the Department with responsibility for children rather than remain with the Department of Justice because that Department does not provide justice. That is the reality. That point should also be taken on board.

See this speech in context