Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 3

Priority Questions. - Residency Permits.

Joe Costello

Question:

50 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of claims for residency status made prior to and since 23 January 2003 by the non-national parent of an Irish-born child; the number of cases which have been processed; the number of cases in which residency has been granted; the number of cases in which the application has been refused; the number of cases in which deportation of such parents have been ordered; the number of cases in which deportations have taken place; if his attention has been drawn to the serious concern expressed by the Human Rights Commission in regard to the procedures in use and particularly the lack of readily accessible legal advice to many such parents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28398/03]

Following the decision of the Supreme Court on 23 January 2003 in the case of L and O which held that no automatic residency rights obtain in respect of non-national parents of Irish-born children, the Government decided that the separate procedure which had then existed to enable persons to apply to reside in the State on the sole basis of parentage of an Irish-born child would not apply to cases which were outstanding on 19 February 2003, namely, in cases where applications were lodged but no decision had been made.

In regard to outstanding claims to reside in the State on the basis of parentage of an Irish-born child and future claims for leave to remain in the State from the non-national parents of Irish-born children, the Government decided that every such case would be examined and decided individually. The Government's policy in this regard was stated in public notices issued on 18 July 2003.

In respect of every person, including a parent of Irish-born children, who has no legal entitlement to remain in the State, a letter issues under the terms of section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, informing him or her of the Minister's intention to deport. The person is allowed 15 days in which to opt for one of the following: make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons he or she should not be deported, that is, be allowed to remain temporarily in the State; leave the State before an order is made; or consent to the making of a deportation order.

In regard to the option of voluntary return, it should be noted that an agreement has recently been reached between my Department and the International Organisation for Migration, IOM, by which the IOM will provide, inter alia, a specifically tailored voluntary return programme for non-national families with children born in Ireland. The registration for this programme is open until the end of January 2004.

If the person, in respect of whom a letter issued under the terms of section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, opts to make representations as to why he or she should not be deported, a range of factors specified in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, is taken into account in making a decision in the case.

Additional information.These factors include the person's individual family and domestic circumstances and humanitarian considerations. In the case of a parent of an Irish-born child, particular regard is given to the Supreme Court judgment in the L and O case and the subsequent judgments in this area.

From 1996 to 23 January 2003, 10,584 persons were granted permission to remain on the basis of an Irish-born child. Figures for refusal of permission are only available from 2000. From 2000 to the 23 January 2003, 40 persons were refused permission to remain.

As at 19 February 2003, 11,493 such cases were on hand. Of this number, 996 applications have been returned as the applicants had an alternative legal basis to remain in the State, for example, valid work permit, business permission to remain, full refugee status and so on. Depending on the circumstances of the individual cases it is likely that the majority of the remaining applicants will be issued with letters under the terms of section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, informing them of the Minister's intention to deport.

Given the complexity of the task which the individual consideration of each of the outstanding Irish-born child cases will involve, it was agreed that additional staff resources would be provided, by way of a levy on Departments, to process these cases. These staff will shortly come on stream to begin work on case processing.

In advance of the additional levied staff coming on stream some preliminary work has been done. In September and October 2003, 353 letters issued under the terms of section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, to parents of Irish-born children whose claims were outstanding at 19 February 2003. Of these, 171 submitted representations as to why they should not be deported, that is, be allowed remain in the State; 62 applied to re-enter the asylum process; five applied for voluntary return; six provided an alternative basis for remaining in the State; and 109 either did not respond or the letters were returned on the basis that the individual no longer lived at the address. Deportation orders have been signed in respect of seven individuals of which two have been effected.

As regards the views expressed by the Human Rights Commission, I issued a detailed response setting out the reasons for the policy indicated above. The policy is fully in accord with the Supreme Court decision in the L and O case. I reiterate that every application for leave to remain in the State based on the parentage of an Irish-born child will be examined and decided individually. In regard to the provision of legal advice, at no stage did I indicate that State-funded legal advice would be provided for those who receive notifications under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. As in general immigration matters, the position is, as it always has been, that persons seeking legal advice may make their own arrangements with any legal adviser they choose.

The Government remains concerned at the abuse of Irish citizenship law by persons with no connection to the State arriving in Ireland with the sole objective of giving birth to a child who will, as a result of being born in Ireland, be entitled to Irish citizenship. In this regard, I am cognisant of the concerns of the masters of the maternity hospitals in regard to the number of non-nationals arriving in Ireland in the late stages of pregnancy. I continue to monitor the situation in regard to this issue, including the question as to whether constitutional and legislative change may be necessary. Ireland is the only member state of the European Union which grants citizenship to a child based solely on its birth on the national territory. In all other member states the citizenship of a child is dependent on the citizenship of the parents and-or the status and duration of residence in the member state concerned.

I am flabbergasted at the Minister's response. He did not answer any of the questions I asked, he merely referred to procedure. He did not give any facts or figures. My question sought to ascertain facts and figures about the number of cases in which residency has been granted, the number of cases in which the application has been refused, the number of cases in which deportations have taken place and if the Minister's attention has been drawn to the serious concern expressed by the Human Rights Commission. This is a scandalous reply. No information was given in response to the question. Will the Minister please answer the question rather than spend the remainder of the time waffling on once more?

Has it been brought to his attention that the Human Rights Commission has pointed out the difficulties and the potential infringements of the human rights of Irish citizens. All children born in this country are Irish citizens. The commission is concerned at the manner in which deportation orders issue, that only 15 days is given for a reply, and that no free legal aid is available to the people to whom the deportation orders issue thus making it difficult for them to make a proper response.

The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights brought in a number of organisations representing various people affected by the Supreme Court decision. The Minister declined our invitation to attend committee meetings on a number of occasions. We have been unable to discuss the issues raised there with the Minister to see if we could come up with a reasonable process to deal with the matter. In all, 11,000 people are affected. These are people who had a reasonable expectation based, in some cases, on the advice of the Minister's officials that they would forego their asylum application and seek residency on the basis of their parentage of Irish-born children. All of those have had to do a volte-faceon this matter. They are now forced by the Department to retrospectively make a different form of application, on foot of a deportation order. That is not fair. Will the Minster give us some real information – facts and figures – on this matter?

If I had sufficient time I would have informed the Deputy that from 1996 to 23 January 2003, 10,584 persons were granted permission to remain in the State on the basis of an Irish born child. As of 19 February 2003, there were 11,493 such cases on hand. Of this number, 996 applications have been returned as the applicants had an alternative legal basis to remain in the State, for example, a valid work permit, business permission to remain, full refugee status and so on.

The question of a legitimate expectation is not correct as the High Court ruled on this matter and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The High Court ruled in the same way as the Supreme Court in this matter so people who came in after the High Court ruling and before the Supreme Court ruling had no legitimate expectation that the law would change or that the High Court had decided the case wrongly. I want to make that very clear. People had no legitimate grounds at that point to conclude the law was not as administered prior to the High Court decision.

The Deputy also suggested some people withdrew their refugee applications, which is correct. A number of them reapplied to be considered as refugees and to seek asylum. The real issue is that the High Court and the Supreme Court have strongly ruled that the mere fact of parentage of an Irish-born child does not constitute legal grounds which prohibit the State from deporting a person where appropriate to maintain the integrity of immigration law. Each of the 11,000 people whose cases are on hand is to be the subject of an individual examination unless somebody decides otherwise. That is the view which the Government has taken. It was decided that there would be no mass deportations nor would there be any mass amnesty.

I have received the Human Rights Commission's response and I have replied to it. I have set out in detail exactly what is happening in my Department and described its approach to the matter. The issue of the absence of legal aid was raised. The composition of letters seeking humanitarian leave to remain does not require legal aid. In some cases, assistance may be required which is generally available. It is not fundamentally a question of making a legal case to me in most instances.

Top
Share