Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

In addition, notwithstanding that applications for leave to remain follow a notice from the Minister of Justice and Equality that he or she is considering deportation, until that application has been determined, refused and followed by a deportation order, it cannot be said that a person is in the country irregularly. The use of the term “regularisation”, therefore, erroneously implies that those with outstanding applications in the three categories specified in the Bill have acted in a way that requires sanction by the State.
People with outstanding applications for a form of international protection are entitled to a decision on that application. There are defined entitlements that flow from either refugee status or subsidiary protection being granted. These include family reunification and the right to a travel document, neither of which are included in the rights which it is proposed will attach to residency in the Bill. The priority should, therefore, be to ensure final determination on those applications within a specified period, for example, six months, rather than the State being able to circumvent the obligation to provide international protection by granting ex gratialeave to remain. This may include active consideration of outstanding applications for judicial review against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to ascertain if they can be returned to the tribunal rather than remaining in a High Court list of undetermined duration. Notwithstanding that a person will not be required to secure residency under the Bill if enacted, there is evidence that people who have opted for leave to remain when offered this under an ad hocscheme operated by the Department of Justice and Equality, the most recent of which is for those resident for five years prior to April 2014, have not fully understood the implications of doing so and have been left, for example, unable to pursue family reunification applications.
The Bill automatically excludes people who should have an opportunity to be considered under a regularisation scheme. These include an immediate family member of the applicant who has been the subject of a deportation order and people with subsisting deportation orders which have not been in force for 12 months, regardless of the country to which the Minister proposes to return them. In addition, the Bill gives power to the Minister to revoke a residence permit issued in accordance with the Bill, if enacted, and to make a deportation order. The circumstances in which the permit can be revoked and a deportation order issued are too wide and there is no right of appeal against revocation and the issue of a deportation order. For example, revocation can take place after a term of imprisonment of one year has been ordered by the court, deportation can be ordered if the Minister deems the person’s removal “conducive to the public good”, for which there is no definition in the Bill, and revocation followed by a deportation order can occur when there has been “falsified or concealed information” in an application.
I hear the calls of my Opposition colleagues that we should allow the Bill to go forward to Committee Stage, when we could put forward amendments. However, I am afraid I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of amendments this Government has accepted from us on any Bill we have put before these Houses. I would have no faith that if the Bill went-----