Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response and I note what he has said. He started by saying that while he was sympathetic towards the case, he was concerned that certain aspects of it are not in the public domain. That is worrying. I realise the duty that is on Deputy Flanagan, as Minister with responsibility for these issues, and on the State to act in accordance with various human rights norms. I recognise that the Minister and the Department have a duty to implement the laws concerning such applications that exist in this land. Of course I do.

There is also a duty on the State, and on the arms of the State that have charge of that responsibility to follow their processes. In 2009, they did not. It was not until 2016 that this applicant sought to revoke the deportation order. I am puzzled to hear that an application has been made to the Supreme Court. I am not aware of that, and I spoke to the legal representatives earlier today. That notwithstanding, it has not been granted. The Minister has an opportunity to intervene at this stage if he so wishes. I take him at his word when he says that he will not intervene now but he will do so when the Supreme Court has had its say, irrespective of what the verdict might be, but especially if it is a negative one.

In the meantime, during that process, irrespective of who was at fault, which somebody may well have been, these children were enrolled in State schools and were afforded an education. They were afforded a welcome by the staff and pupils and by the communities they resided in, so much so that 20,000 people saw fit to sign a petition to implore the Minister to use the powers available to him. I would not make a habit of this, nor would I expect anybody else within the Chamber to do so. There are times, however, when one has to stand up. There are times when one has to recognise that this modern country, and the modern generation of which these children are members, do not see the barriers that existed in Ireland in years past. The recent referendum showed us that the prejudices that existed in other generations thankfully do not exist in the present and upcoming generations.

If the Minister has made a decision not to intervene at this stage, which is his right, based on information that an application has been made to the Supreme Court and has been accepted - information that was not available to me when I spoke to the applicant's legal counsel earlier today - perhaps he will agree to intervene on the conclusion of that process, when he believes he has a right to do so. I accept, acknowledge and appreciate that. I would have hoped, however, that it could have been done earlier. I hear what the Minister has said. We will hold him to his word, and I expect those who signed that petition, everybody associated with this and those watching will do the same. Without a doubt, we acknowledge the duty of the Minister, the State and the Government to uphold the law of the land. If the Minister upholds the law of the land, however, he must ensure that the armoury available to it is acted upon. If it were acted upon in this case, maybe we would not be here today.

See this speech in context