Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Even though I have some grave reservations about some of the issues in the Bill, I still welcome the thrust of it. I concur with Senator Bacik that the Oireachtas seems to have a problem, and it does not just apply to the Government, because each year as we approach Christmas, and particularly as we reach the end of the Government's term, legislation is rushed through. As always, rushed legislation is not good legislation. I have only seven minutes to contribute so I will concentrate on two areas - separated children and the question of translation and interpretation.

Section 57(2) states that with regard to the relevant provisions of the rest of Part 8, "Content of international protection," the best interests of the child "shall be a primary consideration". I submit that the best interests principle should be fully enshrined in the legislation and that the definition of a separated child, as prescribed in the Separated Children in Europe Programme's statement of good practice, should be laid down in the primary legislation.

Clear and objective procedures on the assessment of the age of a child on arrival in the State should be laid down in primary legislation. Provision should also be made for this assessment to be made by appropriate and trained personnel. Currently, there is no statutory procedure for age assessment. This decision-making power must be exercised in accordance with the principles of constitutional justice and fair procedures and should include the right of review. Such principles require certain minimum statutory safeguards.

Section 24 is on the medical examination to determine the age of an unaccompanied minor. The section does not provide guidance on what factors a medical examination should take into account and the qualifications such a medical examiner should hold. In accordance with the UNHCR guidelines on best practice, there should be provision for the physical, developmental, psychological, environmental and cultural attributes of the child to be examined by independent professionals with appropriate expertise and familiarity with the child's ethnic and cultural background. Examinations should never be forced or culturally inappropriate. Particular care should be taken that the examinations are gender appropriate. The current proposals vest powers in the immigration officer with potentially serious consequences. For example, the power to detain could lead to the consequential detention of a minor as a result of a flawed age assessment. Immigration officers should be trained to recognise children at risk at the point of entry and to make decisions that are in the best interests of the child. The proposed legislation should lay down clear and objective guidance on the assessment of the responsible adult for a separated child. In law, a child is either accompanied by a guardian or is a separated child - there is no in between. If the child is a separated child, it should be referred to the Child and Family Agency. The current proposals allow for the use of a responsible adult - see Part 3, which concerns applications for international protection - a term which may not protect the interests of the child and does not accord with Irish law, and the purpose of which is unclear.

On the question of translation and interpretation, some but not all of this material was passed on to me by the Law Society committee which wanted to examine this matter. They wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which I am a member. They make a big issue of the translation and interpretation set-up. Given the huge importance of evidence on protection and leave to remain claims, particularly in the context of the credibility assessment of an applicant - where in most cases such evidence is the deciding factor - it is essential that competent interpreters and translators are provided at all stages of the process. There is no legislation regulating translators and interpreters in Ireland, nor is there any national professional qualification on foot of a statute, or a practised direction from the courts. Translation and interpreting are unregulated in Ireland, which means that anyone who speaks English and another language can call him- or herself a translator or interpreter. I think that is not good enough. It is a flaw in the legislation.

I understand that practitioners in this area also have concerns about the quality of the interpretation and translation services available at each stage of the protection application process. It is the Law Society committee's view that the interpreters' and translators' professions should be regulated by the State to ensure that adequate interpreters are provided and that the minimum standards are discussed, defined and enforced in this regard.

This is not an innocuous area. In a situation in which a misunderstanding arises because an interpreter does not collate and pass on precise information, a simple misinterpretation could prove to be a serious injustice to the person seeking help. It is absolutely crucial that qualified and regulated interpretation and translation services be provided at every stage of the international protection application system. Such services are essential in ensuring that there is effective and clear communication with all applicants at all stages of the process.

Section 18, "Statement to be given to applicant," refers to the Minister providing the person with a statement in writing - specifying in a language that the applicant may reasonably be supposed to understand - of the procedure to be followed and of his or her rights and obligations. The emphasis should be on the importance of ensuring that there is effective communication, and that the communication is in a language and form - depending on the levels of literacy of the person involved - which the person can reasonably understand. The people currently involved in interpretation are concerned about the quality and status of this particular area.

Section 34 refers to personal interviews. This raises a further matter of serious concern regarding the requisite standards of interpretation in the application process. Section 34(4) states that the Minister's only obligation in this regard is to ensure that the interpreter speaks a language that the applicant may reasonably be supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. That falls far short of what we require here, because a person can be turned out of the State on a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In its submission on this Bill, the Law Society's committee considered that this minimum threshold does not hold the application process to sufficiently high standards. A more practical and effective test would be, at the very least, that both the applicant and interpreter ought to be able to understand and clearly communicate with one another without misinterpretation.

I intend to table amendments on Committee Stage. Broadly, our party welcomes this legislation, but I regret that it is all being pushed and rushed through in the final weeks before the Christmas recess. I suppose the Minister has to deal with the hand that is dealt to her and I can understand the problems she has.