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

Amendment No. 6 proposes to substitute new subsections (1A) and (1B) to section 201A to set out the manner in which a child may be disciplined by a director and to set out the sanctions which are prohibited. The proposed subsections would in the main replicate the existing section 201 of the 2001 Act. The Bill proposes a new system of discipline to facilitate the introduction of remission in children's detention schools and to that end proposes a new section 201 to replace the existing section. That and the following sections 201A to 201D, inclusive, provide for a new disciplinary regime to support the introduction of a system of remission of detention in children's detention schools. In future the only system of discipline operating in detention schools will be as provided for in the Bill in the aforementioned sections. Where a child is alleged to have breached discipline, the director will only be able to proceed in accordance with section 201. He or she will have discretion to decide whether to hold an inquiry under the section but he or she will not have discretion to discipline a child in any other way, as was provided for in the existing section 201. It would not be appropriate to operate two disciplinary regimes, one permitting a child to be disciplined on the instruction of a director, albeit with safeguards, and another providing for an inquiry by the director, with safeguards and operational procedures to be prescribed in regulations. I do not propose to accept the amendment.

While disciplinary provisions are included in the Bill, policy in this area must have regard to the fact that children's detention schools are not prisons. It is necessary to preserve the child-focused model of detention. For this reason, a series of provisions introducing the concept of good order will operate alongside a more codified system of discipline. Good order relates to all of the steps that may be taken by staff or management to reduce, de-escalate and, where possible, stop instances of inappropriate behaviour by children in detention. It is preventative in the sense that the ultimate aim is to interrupt a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and prevent it from evolving into an actual breach of discipline, which would result in the initiation of formal disciplinary procedures. In this sense it is related to the concept of early intervention. It also includes the concept of children learning appropriate behaviour and the prevention through learning of future inappropriate behaviour. The consequences of a breach of good order will include verbal prompts by staff, informal warnings, conversations with the child and verbal suggestions or instructions to a child to leave a room or a place, such a sports pitch, or to go to the child's own room. This may be contrasted with the concept of discipline, which is a more formal regime that will only be initiated at the discretion of a director of a children's detention school. The system of good order will be outlined in rules to be adopted by the board of management under section 179 of the Children Act 2001 and regulations to be adopted by the Minister under section 221 of that Act. The director of a children's detention school will have discretion to initiate the proposed system of discipline in the event of a repeated breach of a good order rule by a child which escalates to a disciplinary matter. The proposed system of good order rules will be closely modelled on the care policies currently in place in children's detention schools.

In regard to the proposed amendment, section 201A(1) outlines the sanctions permitted for a breach of discipline, namely, caution, reprimand, prohibition on certain recreational and other activities, forfeiture of pocket money or forfeiture of not more than 14 days of remission. These are the only sanctions permitted following a finding of breach of discipline. I indicated on Committee Stage that I intended to consider the matter further and to consult the Attorney General's office on it. On consulting that office, I have been advised that the old list of prohibited sanctions in the 2001 Act existed in a context where there was no list of permitted sanctions. Listing all inappropriate punishments is an unnecessarily difficult, bordering on impossible, way to prohibit them and creates the risk that a discipline not included in the list might be perceived as permissible. The important point is that it is no longer necessary to incorporate a list of prohibited sanctions because the Bill solves the problem from the other direction by listing permitted sanctions only. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.