Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 195: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will furnish details of costs (details supplied); the breakdown of these costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47276/08]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The deportation of illegal immigrants and refused asylum seekers is costly, particularly to distant countries such as Nigeria, China, etc. In most cases removals are carried out using commercial flights which usually involves transit through other European airports as Ireland does not have direct flights to most of the countries of return. In addition, most flights have to be booked at short notice very near the date of departure which involves higher costs than if booked well in advance.

In considering the costs of deportations, the considerable expense arising from the continued presence in the State of persons who are the subject of deportation orders has to be taken into account. These costs include social welfare costs, direct provision costs, and detention costs in certain cases. While it is important to keep deportation costs to a minimum, not to remove persons refused permission to remain in the State would call into question the integrity of the entire immigration system. This would leave this country open to further illegal immigration and even more expense to taxpayers.

There are two main categories of repatriation charter flights. Smaller charters are organised to remove disruptive deportees that commercial airlines will not take on account of previous disruptive behaviour on board aircraft. Bigger charters are organised to return larger numbers of deportees in a more efficient way than using scheduled flights. It should be stated that Ireland does not have direct flights to the destinations where these charters have taken place. The alternative to chartering is transiting through hub European airports involving longer transfer times, more inconvenience to deportees and the attendant risk of deportees absconding in transit.

The use of charter flights, including joint charters shared by two or more countries, is accepted and used widely across the European Union as an effective and efficient means of returning persons illegally present on the territories of member States following individual consideration of their cases. The European Council of Ministers adopted a decision in April 2004 facilitating the greater use of joint repatriation flights as a means of demonstrating solidarity among member States, increasing the rate of returns and making more effective use of resources. The implications for State resources and the integrity of the asylum and immigration processes are plain to see should deported persons have been allowed to remain in the State. This factor must always be offset against the seemingly high cost of charter operations.

Set out in the following table are the statistics requested by the Deputy.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 196: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the cost of each deportation which has taken place in the past 12 months and the number of persons involved in each case; if another EU country was involved in any deportation of persons in conjunction with the authorities here; the breakdown of costs between the member states; the steps which are being taken to reduce costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47286/08]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The deportation costs provided as follows refer to the deportation of either illegal immigrants or persons refused refugee status in the State. The vast majority of the removals involved persons who were refused refugee status in the State.

Set out in the following table are the cost of removals of persons subject to Deportation Orders over a 12 month period by scheduled/commercial flights for deportees and their Garda escorts.

The figures provided do not include the cost of overtime or subsistence payments for Garda escorts.

Set out in the following table are the cost of removals of persons subject to Deportation Orders over a 12 month period by charter flights for deportees and their Garda escorts.

The deportation of illegal immigrants and refused asylum seekers is costly, particularly to distant countries such as Nigeria, China, etc. In most cases removals are carried out using commercial flights which usually involves transit through other European airports as Ireland does not have direct flights to most of the countries of return. In addition, most flights have to be booked at short notice very near the date of departure which involves higher costs than if booked well in advance.

In considering the costs of deportations, the considerable expense arising from the continued presence in the State of persons who are the subject of deportation orders has to be taken into account. These costs include social welfare costs, direct provision costs, and detention costs in certain cases. While it is important to keep deportation costs to a minimum, not to remove persons refused permission to remain in the State would call into question the integrity of the entire immigration system. This would leave this country open to further illegal immigration and even more expense to taxpayers.

There are two main categories of repatriation charter flights. Smaller charters are organised to remove disruptive deportees that commercial airlines will not take on account of previous disruptive behaviour on board aircraft. Bigger charters are organised to return larger numbers of deportees in a more efficient way than using schedule flights. It should be stated that Ireland does not have direct flights to the destinations where these charters have taken place. The alternative to chartering is transiting through hub European airports involving longer transfer times, more inconvenience to deportees and the attendant risk of deportees absconding in transit.

The use of charter flights, including joint charters shared by two or more countries, is accepted and used widely across the European Union as an effective and efficient means of returning persons illegally present on the territories of member States following individual consideration of their cases. The European Council of Ministers adopted a decision in April 2004 facilitating the greater use of joint repatriation flights as a means of demonstrating solidarity among member States, increasing the rate of returns and making more effective use of resources. The implications for State resources and the integrity of the asylum and immigration processes are plain to see should deported persons have been allowed to remain in the State. This factor must always be offset against the seemingly high cost of charter operations.

Authorities in Member States responsible for returns are increasing their cooperation. The main reasons for this are, inter alia, greater dialogue with third countries on migration issues and increased joint return operations involving a number of Member States and greater use of Member States of transit for return. Co-operation between the authorities responsible is in many cases a prerequisite for the successful completion of return operations. Article 9(1) of Council Regulation No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing FRONTEX (OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1) stipulates that, subject to the Community return policy, the Agency is to provide the necessary assistance for organising joint return operations by Member States. In accordance with the Commission communication of 19 July 2006 on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals, "FRONTEX will provide the necessary assistance for organising and coordinating the joint return operations". Ireland first participated in a FRONTEX operation in June of this year as indicated in the table above.

It is well established that an effective deportation process is a necessary element of an Immigration system. The lack of an effective means to deport persons not granted permission to remain in the State would call into question the integrity of the entire immigration and asylum laws. Failure to enforce deportation orders in the case of disruptive behaviour would produce two inevitable outcomes. Firstly, it would send a clear signal that deportation can be avoided by simply being disruptive. Secondly, disruptive behaviour by deportees on scheduled flights would become the norm, leading to concerns for the safety of passengers and staff on aircraft and cause further difficulties for the Gardaí in the already problematic task of enforcing deportation orders.