Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, and his senior officials to the House. I note the Bill was published on 11 May, which gave us only a short time to prepare to debate Second Stage. I want to express my thanks to the Fianna Fáil research office for its work with me on preparing a response. I have no real problems with this, although it is an issue that will arise again given the time available between Second Stage and Committee Stage.

With regard to familiarisation, while I have not been to Oberstown, I was on a visiting committee at the Curragh at one time, so I know a bit about prisons. I believe it would be useful, if transport was available from St. Patrick's or from Oberstown, if some of the spokespersons could visit the institution before Committee Stage, just to familiarise themselves with the actual position of the building and the facilities there. I suggest that it be arranged for us to at least go there, whether with the Minister or with his officials, as it would be a useful exercise. I remember we were brought to Mountjoy some years ago to visit the facilities there, which proved useful.

Fianna Fáil supports the passage of this Bill. Rehabilitation must be a paramount consideration in the detention of young people. While we broadly welcome the Bill, there are a number of important issues which need to be clarified about the amendments and repeals to the 2001 and 2006 Acts. Principally, the Bill repeals the right of children on remand to be separated from children who have been convicted. The Minister needs to clarify if this is the intention of the Bill and whether this important right will be implemented in Oberstown in practice.

It is hoped that the Bill, by transferring responsibility for 17 year old offenders to Oberstown, will finally put an end to the sending of children to St. Patrick's Institution. Oberstown is the most appropriate environment for the small number of young people for whom detention is necessary, and the option to remand those under 18 years in adult prisons needs to be removed as a matter of urgency. The Government needs to expedite the completion of the Oberstown facilities and ensure the ending, at the earliest possible date, of the practice of detaining children in adult prison facilities.

The Government has dragged its heels on introducing this Bill, which was published on 11 May last, although the Government has been in office since 2011. I accept the Minister has not been in his current position for that long and was only recently appointed Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, so it is not all his responsibility. However, this delay has given the Seanad less than a day to read the Bill before it was introduced in the House.

The Bill repeals section 88(12) of 2001 Act, which deals with separation of children on remand and convicted children. This is an essential provision of the 2001 Act and a responsibility of Ireland under Article 10 of the UN Convention on Human Rights. It does not appear that this section is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Can the Minister clarify this? Currently, in general, detainment on remand is used too often for children and there are too many children on remand. This is reflected in the fact that only 27% of children on remand are convicted of an offence and the vast majority are not convicted. We need to be very careful devising any legislation that changes the rights of children on remand.

I seek clarification on how children on remand and convicted children will be separated in Oberstown. It is very important not to mix children on remand with those who are convicted so can the Minister clarify how, practically, this will be done in Oberstown and to what degree?

Section 88(13) of the 2001 Act ensures that children will not be placed on remand or detained for purposes solely regarding the care and welfare of the child. It appears that this Bill removes this section, which is deeply worrying. Can the Minister clarify if this important provision is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill?

Broadly, what are the plans to separate children on remand and children who have been convicted? We were previously told that Ireland does not intend to comply with this provision under Article 10 of the UN Convention on Human Rights by not keeping those on remand separate from those convicted. My research team and I have looked at this situation and we feel very strongly about it. I am sure the Minister will clarify the situation as it is a straightforward matter to separate both. From a practical point of view, if there is somebody on remand and somebody convicted, the influence of somebody who has been convicted on somebody on remand could be damaging to the child. This is why we are very concerned that, in the design and structure of Oberstown, this issue would be clearly addressed. When somebody is on remand, he or she has not been convicted and is innocent until proven guilty. It is very important that he or she would not feel that he or she was somehow being held as a convicted person as opposed to being on remand. Is it the Minister's intention to comply with the convention?

It is worrying that the Bill repeals section 144 of the 2006 Act, which gives a judge the power to defer detention orders. Can the Minister clarify that this provision is reinstated elsewhere in the Bill?

The main purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the amalgamation of the three child detention schools in Oberstown, Lusk, County Dublin, and to provide for the necessary legal changes required to end the detention of children in adult detention facilities, which has been very damaging and which we will tease out in the debate on the Bill. If a child is retained for a further period after turning 18 years of age, it is very important to finish any courses that are underway. The Minister's officials might also examine the question of whether there is any provision for a visiting committee, even a small one from the Oireachtas, that would attend Oberstown regularly just to see that everything is in order.

As Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, brought forward a Bill in the House whereby offences would be removed or purged after a certain period of time. The Minister and his officials might look at this situation. The idea of the legislation was that young people who got into trouble would be able to rectify their situation and get matters straight again. However, we must ensure that if some offence, such as a drugs offence, has been committed, this will not be held against them in the future and they will have a right to travel to the United States, Canada and elsewhere. If that offence can be purged after a period of time, it would give a great incentive to young people to lead a good life and to act responsibly so they would be restored to full, respectful involvement in society. As far as I know, this provision is in current law following Deputy Shatter's Bill, but the Minister might comment on that point.