Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am sympathetic to Senator Higgins' comments and she is quite right that we need to err on the side of consideration, protection and caution, particularly when it comes to minors or young people who are the subject of the proposed section 51B. This amendment applies to the proposed inserted section 51B, and particularly subsections (4) and (5) of that section. The difficulty I have is that when speaking to her amendment, Senator Higgins suggested that where we do not know a person's age, we should err on the side of caution. While I am sympathetic to that view, that is not what the amendment states. Amendment No. 17 refers to the situation where the relevant officer, being an immigration officer or member of An Garda Síochána, does not have documentation to prove the person's age. I suggest that there is a large gap between knowing and being able to prove a person's age. In the first instance, these processes do not follow the guesswork of individuals and do not rely on rumour or misinformation that might be put out on the Internet or whatever it might be. Before an order is made in this respect, facts must be established by officials within the Department to the satisfaction of the Minister but also, in certain cases, to courts and to the satisfaction of judges. It is not the case that either an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána would be going into a situation where he or she would be exercising a power under the proposed section 51B(4) or section 51B(5) on the basis of guesswork, estimation or even his or her own assessment. Such relevant officers are working on the basis of information they have been given, which - I think we must work on this basis - has already been established as a matter of fact. Although I have great respect from where Senator Higgins is coming from, the danger with this amendment is that it creates an undue burden. For example, if the relevant officer is aware of the presence of a warrant or a document that perhaps he or she has been given in electronic format but does not have it in physical format or he or she does not have it with him or her for some reason, and if the relevant officer has come from an office where he or she has seen the document, I think he or she is still reasonably satisfied as to the facts and the age of the individual involved. This amendment would create an undue burden on an officer of the State in these circumstances. The amendment refers specifically to documentation proving a particular status, rather than knowledge of the status.