Dáil debates

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

9:00 am

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality and congratulate him on his appointment, as it is the first opportunity I have had of doing so in the House. I also welcome the fact that his first Bill was the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I trust and expect that he will be a reforming Minister in the Department of Justice and Equality; God knows there is plenty of reform required in that Department.

The matter to which I refer tonight is a legacy of the system under previous Ministers, which has become somewhat out of control. I deal with many cases that are a decade or 12 years old, but this is the oldest case - that of a person who has been within the asylum system for 14 years. It highlights the inadequacy of the immigration system as it operates at present. It seems the system is something of a labyrinth; once entered, it is almost impossible to exit. One goes around in circles indefinitely, never knowing whether one will come out at the end at all.

In this case, a man arrived in this country and sought refugee status in April 1997, and 14 years later, now virtually middle-aged, he is still enveloped in the system and has not been able to escape. There is a litany of applications, refusals and appeals. The man became the parent of an Irish-born child prior to 2003. There were deportation orders and appeals, a ministerial affirmation of a deportation order, and now the non-implementation of that order. For the last three years the applicant has been attending the Garda National Immigration Bureau monthly, waiting for travel arrangements to be made for his deportation, none of which has ever transpired. In the meantime, his Irish child has grown and is now nine years old and attending an Irish school. The man himself has been unable to obtain gainful employment for the past 14 years, even though he is desperately anxious to work and has skills. He is almost worn out by the stress and the threat of deportation every day for the past three years, along with the requirement to attend the GNIB regularly.

It is in this context that I mention the document Government for National Recovery 2011-2016, which states: "We will introduce comprehensive reforms of the immigration, residency and asylum systems, which will include a statutory appeals system and set out rights and obligations in a transparent way." It is now time for the new Government to review all the asylum and immigration applications that are in the pipeline at various stages of processing by the Department of Justice and Equality, particularly those that have been there for a considerable period. As a new Government, we owe it to people who have spent excessive periods awaiting decisions by the immigration system to deal with their outstanding applications as quickly as possible. It is contrary to natural justice to keep any human being in limbo for 14 years.

The Minister should now examine this case, along with the other cases, and demonstrate sympathy for those people whose applications for residency or refugee status in this country have not been processed in an equitable and timely manner. We should carefully consider the situation that has arisen. We need to deal with the backlog, rather than investigating the reasons for it, establish mechanisms to ensure it does not continue in this manner, and ensure that the cases that are waiting to be dealt with, in one form or another, are dealt with urgently.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.