Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks. He correctly quoted from the programme for Government. There is a substantial problem with the number of people in the system, as referred to by the Deputy, who are awaiting decisions on their future. This is an issue I hope to address in the coming months, and we hope to deal with the asylum legislation that had reached Committee Stage but had not completed its passage through the House during the last Dáil. That Bill will come before the House on Committee Stage once the Oireachtas committee on justice has been formed, and I intend to introduce amendments to the Bill as originally published by the previous Minister.

I heard what the Deputy had to say about the person in question. I am advised that this person arrived in the State on 14 April 1997 and claimed asylum. On 4 March 1999, he was informed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that he had not been declared a refugee. This decision was affirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on 8 October 1999. On 13 January 2000, a recommendation was made that the applicant be repatriated, and on 11 May 2000, a deportation order was made in respect of him. This deportation order required the individual to remove himself from the State; however, he failed to do so and remained in the State illegally. He has been in the State illegally since that date. Therefore, the Deputy's suggestion that the individual should be granted residency is unfounded, as the length of time he has remained in the State is a result of his own actions in failing to remove himself from the State pursuant to a deportation order properly made.

In May 2004, the person's solicitors submitted representations stating that he had a right to residency as he was the father of an Irish citizen child born on 24 July 2002. This submission was considered in the context of the so-called IBC/05 scheme which allowed the non-EU national parents of Irish citizen children to remain in the State, subject to certain conditions.

The individual's application was rejected for two reasons. First, it was rejected on the basis that he had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and was bound to the peace on 2 July 2003 for the production of an article in the course of a dispute or fight, contrary to Section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1991 and also for a breach of Section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.

In addition, the individual's solicitors indicated in 2005 that he was separated from his wife and no longer resided with his child. I was informed he provided no evidence of child maintenance payments but I understand that if he was not employed and had no source of income clearly it was unrealistic to expect him to make such payments. However, there was no evidence of him having a relationship of any kind with the child. As he had not submitted evidence that he played any sort of a role in his child's upbringing, this was a further ground for refusing his application for permission to remain in the State under the IBC/05 scheme

Following the refusal of his application under that scheme, the applicant was required to leave the State as a result of the deportation order made in 2000. However, he was afforded a further opportunity in August 2007 to provide any court-issued documents or otherwise with regard to custody or maintenance for his Irish citizen child. I reiterate he could not be expected to pay maintenance if he was unemployed and had no income available to him but he could reasonably be expected to have a relationship with his child and be able to establish same to some extent to the satisfaction of the Department. Again, his reply did not include any indication that he had any role, financial or otherwise, in the upbringing of his child.

An up to date Garda report received on 30 January 2008 indicated that on 18 October 2006 the individual concerned was fined €200 and disqualified from driving for one year in Kilmainham District Court for having no insurance. The further information in regard to the applicant was considered and a decision was made by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to affirm the deportation order. This decision was conveyed to him by a letter issued on 7 March 2008. The applicant was given a new date to present to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to facilitate his removal because it was clear at this stage he was not willing to comply with the requirement in his deportation order that he should remove himself from the State.

It appears the individual concerned has no access to his child in the State and has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his parental role to his child. The individual concerned should either remove himself from the State or else continue to present to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to allow them to put the necessary arrangements in place to facilitate his deportation. He should also provide the Garda National Immigration Bureau with any documentation in his possession which would verify his identity to facilitate his removal from the State.

I am advised by the bureau that the removal of the individual concerned from the State will be effected as soon as the practical arrangements can be made. If the Deputy has available to him any information that can be supplied and verified to the Department stating this gentleman has a full relationship with his child and engages in the child's upbringing I am prepared to have the matter re-examined. However, in circumstances in which it appears he has no involvement in his child's upbringing, is separated from his spouse and is subject to a deportation order that has been in place for a long period at this stage I cannot deal with the matter in the manner the Deputy seeks.

See this speech in context