Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 95, to delete lines 21 to 25 and substitute the following: “(8) If, and for as long as an immigration officer or member of the Garda Síochána concerned does not have documentation to prove that the person subject of a return order is not under 18 years of age, the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) shall not apply.”.

I hope we will have the opportunity to address these issues again. I am conscious that there are those who support these issues but one would like to engage with them in a more detailed debate at another time in different legislation.

Amendment No. 17 relates to the concern that exists currently under the legislation regarding the measures I have described, for example, being arrested without a warrant, taken to a place of detention and being removed from a premises by use of reasonable force, including one's dwelling. The Bill contains the phrase "member of the Garda Síochána concerned has reasonable grounds for believing that the person the subject of a return order is not under the age of 18 years, the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) shall apply as if the person had attained the age of 18 years" and my amendment would reverse that. It basically states that in terms of not knowing that the person is over the age of 18 as a fact or only going on reasonable grounds of believing that, or an estimation, if there is a risk of erring, we err on the side of caution when it comes to children. The risk of treating someone aged 14, 15 or 16 as if he or she was over the age of 18 is a much higher danger than the danger that a 19- or 20-year-old might accidentally be treated as if he or she was 17. We have a particular duty of responsibility to the protection and care of children. We also have a constitutional commitment in respect of the rights of the child.If there are concrete grounds to be sure that someone is over the age of 18, so be it. However, it is a different case if one is simply going on their belief that a person is over 18, those reasonable grounds being an estimation. Indeed, we have seen multiple cases of false information being put out and false suggestions being made around people's ages. As we must err on the side of protection, I suggest that given the potential distressing nature of the actions that are taking place under subsections (4) and (5), we should have a higher bar of ensuring that children are not subject to them.