Minister denies proposals will affect rights of asylum-seekers

The Minister for Justice rejected claims yesterday that new proposals aimed at combating the abuse of immigration controls infringed the human rights of asylum-seekers.

Mr O'Donoghue said he had taken advice from the Attorney General and "I am satisfied the proposals are absolutely consistent with the Constitution and with the principles of natural justice".

Under a number of amendments to the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999, asylum-seekers will have only two weeks to seek a judicial review in the High Court of a decision on their application. They now have between three and six months.

Mr O'Donoghue said the judicial review process "cannot be used to create unnecessary delays in the deportation process" where there was no issue of substance which would warrant postponement of a person's deportation. He stressed safeguards remained in place to allow those with a substantial case to make it.

However, the Fine Gael spokesman on justice, equality and law reform, Mr Jim Higgins, said the proposal was "a serious infringement on the rights of non-nationals to the Irish judicial system".

Ms Jan O'Sullivan (Labour) said the process of constantly amending asylum legislation was sending out negative messages about immigration, asylum-seekers and refugees and thus "adding to the racism and xenophobia that is clearly present in this country".

She said it would be better if the Minister "directed his energies towards implementing the Refugee Act and bringing in the legislation which he has promised . . . rather than amending legislation in this piecemeal and negative fashion which is contrary in my opinion to human rights."

Mr Joe Higgins (Socialist Party) said asylum-seekers were treated by officialdom quite differently from Irish and EU citizens and "this is nothing short of institutional racism".

However, Mr O'Donoghue said the arguments put forward by some deputies were "at best disingenuous and possibly mischievous" because they chose to ignore that deportation orders came at the end of a lengthy process in which people had ample opportunity to put their cases forward.

A procedural motion was passed to enable the Dail Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to debate the amendments.