Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 October 2010
7 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of immigrants who have been the subject of a Deportation Order in 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010; the number of deportations that have been implemented in 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010; if he has satisfied himself with the operation of this aspect of immigration policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35368/10]
View answerUnder section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform may make a deportation order that requires any foreign national specified in the order to leave the State within such period as may be specified in the order and to remain thereafter out of the State. Thus, a deportation order is a requirement imposed on a person to leave the State and to remain outside of the State. Where a person fails to leave the State, he or she is required to report to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB.
Details of the number of deportation orders signed and effected in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 August 2010 are as follows: in 2008, there were a total of 757 deportation orders signed, of which 161 were effected; in 2009, there were a total of 1,077 deportation orders signed, of which 291 were effected; up until 31 August this year, I have signed 495 deportation orders, of which 171 were effected by that date.
So as to give the House the full picture I should also add that in the period in question a further 529 persons in 2008, 539 persons in 2009 and 286 persons up to 31 August 2010 also left the State as voluntary returns. A further 271 persons in 2008, 243 persons in 2009 and 114 persons up to 31 August 2010 were returned to other EU member States under the Dublin regulation. An additional 40 EU citizens in 2008, 29 EU citizens in 2009 and 18 EU citizens up to 31 August 2010 were removed to their home country under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006.
The figures for deportation orders effected I have provided to the House reflect the numbers of deportations that have been enforced, by the GNIB by escorting individuals to another State or by placing them on a carrier leaving the State. It is generally accepted that many other persons served with a deportation order leave the State at that stage but do not inform the immigration authorities of their departure.
Clearly, the making of a deportation order has the most serious consequences for individuals in that it renders their continued presence in the State unlawful. The gardaí who enforce all the deportation orders advise that it is their view that very many people who are the subject of deportation orders will have already left the State.
Moreover, it is also the case that in this jurisdiction as it is in others, that significant numbers of people who are the subject of deportation orders leave voluntarily on receipt of the order. As exit checks from the State are not in use, it is not possible to indicate with any degree of precision the numbers who may be in this category but all the available evidence suggests that the number is likely to be considerable.
A deportation order is normally accompanied by a notice requiring the person concerned to comply with arrangements to ensure that he or she leaves the State. Failure to comply with those arrangements is an offence and can result in the person being arrested and detained to ensure his or her removal from the State. Furthermore, the enforcement of some deportations can be delayed by judicial challenges taken by the parties involved.
I calculate that approximately a quarter of those persons served with a deportation orders are deported. Would the Minister again give the figures for the persons who leave voluntarily? I do not know what means of validation exist for the numbers that leave voluntarily. At what point does the serving of a deportation order that is never implemented discredit the system? Has the time not come for us to address the backlog that has grown up over a number of years, as regards people who have sought leave to remain or whatever, put down roots in Ireland and had children here and so on, while we do not seem to be able to catch up with matters administratively?
I gave the figures earlier for voluntary returns. These refer to people notified to the Department as going. Any social welfare benefits and otherwise they might have been in receipt of would cease from that point onwards. In some instances the GNIB in Ennis would have facilitated their return. The figures are 529 persons in 2008, 539 in 2009 and 286 up to 31 August 2010. Equally, there is a substantial number of people who returned without any reference, and without any information being relayed to the Garda or State services. We do not have exit checks from this State, bearing in mind the Border as well. People may very well leave once they have been served with or know that a deportation order has been served.
The benefit of serving a deportation order in regard to somebody whose whereabouts are not known to the Garda means that the cessation of any benefits he or she might have been entitled to is complete. If he or she comes back into the system seeking social welfare or any other benefits, the fact that a deportation order is against him or her means that this will be brought to the attention of the authorities, and obviously an arrest will take place thereafter.
I believe the Minister said there were 529 voluntary departures in 2008, 539 in 2009 and 286 in 2010. Is that correct?
There were 286 up to the end of August.
I find that puzzling. If one adds 529 to 161, it comes to virtually all 757 of the deportation orders implemented. The remarkable thing about 2010 is that if one adds 286 to 126 one gets 412 and there were only 353 deportation orders.
On a point of clarification, the voluntary returns might not necessarily have been served. They might have been about to be served with a deportation order.
Is the Minister is misleading me and the House?
No, I am not.
I asked the Minister how many deportation orders there were and he told me. Then he said that was not taking the voluntary departures into account. When I add the voluntary departures to the departures implemented I get a figure that is more than the number of deportation orders in the first place.
I said what I did in order to give the House the fullest of pictures.
That is not acceptable in this House. I do not know whether the Minister or whoever wrote the reply for him cannot count, but that is really bad form.
I do not accept that.
The Minister must accept it. How much is two and two?
Allow the Minister to reply.
I gave the Deputy the figures in relation to the number of deportation orders signed and effected. Then I said that in those years there were also voluntary returns. I said, "So as to give the House the full picture I should also add that in the period in question so many voluntary returns . . .", and then there was the issue in relation to the free movement of persons. I was trying to give as full a picture as possible regarding how many people in the system would have left. At the same time I indicated that there was a substantial number of people who would never come to the attention of the authorities if they had returned. They disappear out of the system.
On this point, that is not what the Minister said. For example, I have his previous answer before me. It says, "Overall, the level of evasion, the lodgement of judicial challenges and the likely voluntary departure from the State of persons served with a deportation order...". It is not a question of people additional and separate from those served with a deportation order. I regard it as a serious matter to try something like that here when it is very easy to do the maths. There were 412 people left, who were served with deportation orders but only 353 were served with deportation orders.
If it is so easy to do the maths, why then should I try to mislead the House? What I was trying to do was to give the fullest of pictures with regard to those people who are in the system and who have left the State——
I think we have exhausted this matter.
That is an excellent question.
——either noticed or unnoticed by the State.
I was loth to shout over the Minister.
I will protect the Deputy to make sure he is not shouted down.
That is a change for the Deputy.
The number who voluntarily left over a period of two years and eight months, based on the three figures given by the Minister, was 1,354. Of these, how many had been served with a deportation order? Do those who return voluntarily pay for their flights or boat journeys, or does the State pay for them? The total number of people deported — again, over a period of two years and eight months — was 623. What travel agency was used for arranging the flights or trips of those who were deported and those who left voluntarily?
That is well beyond the scope of the question.
No. Does the Minister have details of the cost to the State of the deportations that took place?
The Minister may answer in so far as the questions are relevant.
I do not have the figure for the proportion of those returning voluntarily who had been served with a deportation order. With regard to the mode of return, when a person is issued with a notice of intention to deport — the 15-day letter — he or she is given the option, among others, of returning voluntarily to his or her country and is provided with contact details of the International Organisation for Migration. The IOM has informed us that since the programme's inception in 2001, it has assisted a total of 2,716 people in returning to their countries of origin up to September of this year.
As per the memorandum of understanding signed between my Department and the IOM, the estimated total budget for 2010 is €1.447 million, which is broken down into two parts: the voluntary assisted return and re-integration programme, which is funded by the Department and has a budget of €958,584, and the new targeted irregular migrants programme, which has an estimated budget of €488,449. Funding for this new programme will be provided by the Department of Justice and Law Reform but it is co-financed by the European Return Fund. A target of 205 returns under the original programme was set in 2010, with the programme running to 31 December 2010.
We need to move on to the next question.
A target of 145 returnees was set under the new programme, which runs from March 2010 to February 2011.
What about the travel agent?
We have spent more than double the allotted time on this question.
I do not have any information on travel agents.
Do those financial figures relate to travel costs?
I understand that is organised directly with the IOM and not through my Department.
