The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill could breach provisions of the Constitution and Ireland's international human rights obligations, according to NGOs working in the area.
At a joint press conference yesterday lawyers working with organisations involved in both immigration rights and the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers welcomed the long-awaited overhaul of the law, but warned that it risked breaching fair procedures and people's rights under international law.
Dr Siobhán Mullally, head of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights in UCC and chairwoman of the Refugee Council of Ireland, said the Bill introduced a single procedure for asylum seekers, which was welcome. However, this made it crucial that procedures conformed to best practice. Initial interviews should be recorded, she said.
She said there were particular issues involving separated children, about whom there was widespread concern, including from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and from the Government's rapporteur on child protection, Geoffrey Shannon. However, there was no procedure in the Bill for age assessment, and the HSE's duties towards separated children were not clarified.
There were no protections either for child victims of trafficking. The measures for victims were linked to aiding the prosecution of traffickers, and this was not appropriate for child victims.
The proposals for detention of asylum-seekers at points of entry to the State were neither necessary nor proportionate, she said, as required by international conventions, and there were insufficient safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. The Bill also failed to address the shortcomings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, she said.
Hilkka Bekker, senior solicitor with the Immigrant Council of Ireland, said there were no opportunities in the Bill for immigrants, as opposed to asylum seekers, to make representations about a decision to deport them summarily. For example, a victim of domestic violence, whose spouse held all the documentation, could be picked up off the street and summarily deported.
There was no independent review body for those refused the right to renew their residency permits, forcing people to go to the High Court. The time limits on making applications to the High Court were also likely to be in breach of the Constitution, as they placed restrictions on access to fair procedures.
The wasted costs orders that could be made against lawyers in cases deemed frivolous was a breach of the equality of arms principle, as no such orders were available against the State if it defended the indefensible.
The ICI was also concerned at the restrictions on marriage, whereby certain people were barred from marrying in Ireland. This was in clear breach of the Constitution.
Siobhán O'Donoghue, director of the Migrants Rights Centre, said 45 days was too short for victims of trafficking to decide on assisting a prosecution. Norway had increased the period to six months, because no prosecutions were being made after 45 days.
Noeline Blackwell, director general of Free Legal Aid Centres, said the debate on the Bill provided an opportunity to fix what was wrong in it, especially relating to the rights of minors, the victims of trafficking, procedures which denied access to justice and family reunification.