Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will move to a couple of policy issues which may be lumped together. The first involves statistics for immigration enforcement.

In its concluding observations on the second periodic review of Ireland the UN Committee Against Torture requested the State to provide it with data in the next periodic review for the countries of origin of persons denied leave to land and the point of embarkation for the state party to which they were returned. The Minister told us in February that Ireland would be in a position to respond well in advance of the next periodic review. From work done by others, some of the information has been obtained. We know that the number of non-EU citizens refused entry to Ireland doubled between 2013 and 2016, to 3,950.

Between January and September of 2017, 2,600 people were denied entry. Between 2008 and 2016, 2,135 citizens from areas of conflict or humanitarian concern, for example, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea and Libya, were refused entry. Perhaps some of the issues I raised in my first question have been corrected. If so, confirmation will do.

When will the UN Convention against Torture, UNCAT, recommendation regarding data publication be implemented? Are there plans to produce written guidance on refusing people entry at ports and airports, particularly people from conflict zones? What assurance can Mr. Kirrane provide that such people are given every opportunity to try to assert whatever asylum claims they might have before being deported, for example, translators, liaison officers and so on? Of those refused leave to land, how many are subsequently given the opportunity, if necessary, to claim asylum or a right to appeal? I refer to a right to appeal in such a scenario.

Regarding immigrants' rights, section 60 of the Data Protection Act allows the Minister to devise regulations restricting the rights accruing to individuals under Article 12. The British Government's proposal in this regard has caused major upheaval in the UK. One MP has made the point that such a restriction would render it impossible for individuals involved in immigration disputes to get access to their personal information from the Home Office, making it difficult for them to resolve their problems. In the Irish context, which of the rights under Articles 12 to 22 will be restricted for the purpose of ensuring the effective operation of the immigration system? Presumably, INIS is being consulted on this matter. If not, I will take that answer and address it with the Minister. What is the thinking on the Data Protection Act in this regard and has INIS been consulted?

I am probably pronouncing it incorrectly but my final major question is on the Luximon judgment, which related to the rights of people who came to Ireland before 2011 on student visas and stayed after their visas had expired. The Government changed the rules in 2011 in order that people who now come to Ireland on student visas can only stay for seven years. Obviously, some people have been timed out. The courts decided that the Minister should have considered the right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when considering applications for a change of status - for example, from student to stamp 4 - and leave to remain, and that people could not be booted out unceremoniously. The State seemed to fight the case every step of the way. The implications of the three court judgments is that we must introduce a new scheme. These are hard-working people who have been in Ireland for ten years or longer but they have been kept in limbo.

We had been told that INIS was going to introduce a scheme to deal with applicants in this category until the Minister changed the scheme in late 2017 and that that work had since been put on hold. Was that the case and, if so, why? Why was the High Court's judgment in 2015 ignored? By rights, INIS should have been processing the hundreds of cases affected but intransigence in this regard meant the appeals process was slowed down and complicated further.

Given that INIS lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, why was a scheme not ready to go in April when the Supreme Court judgment was handed down? Surely it knew that it would lose? Why was the decision even challenged at that stage? Three years had passed since the High Court judgment and people were still waiting. Is that acceptable? Will Mr. Kirrane provide a solid date for when a scheme to process these applicants will be introduced, putting an end to their misery? I am concerned that it reflects badly on an attitude that seems to exist, one that is not welcoming or facilitative of applicants. It is blatantly obstructionist, putting people down rabbit holes and sending them around in circles. The inordinate delays in every facet of this process may stem from this attitude rather than anything else. I do not know. I do not have an answer to it but I would be keen to hear Mr. Kirrane's thoughts on the matter.