Michael D Higgins calls on Council of State to discuss asylum bill

President Michael D Higgins has confirmed he is convening a meeting of the Council of State to examine whether the Government’s new asylum-seeker legislation is “repugnant” to the Constitution and should be forwarded to the Supreme Court.

The council will discuss the International Protection Bill 2015 on Tuesday. The bill would provide legislation for a single procedure on international protection applications.

When it was introduced, Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald said the single procedure would allow the country to “efficiently grant international protection to those who are entitled to it”, and at the same time “identify, at a much earlier stage, persons who have no entitlement to stay in the State and who can safely return to their country of origin”.

In announcing the Council of State meeting, Áras an Uachtaráin pointed out that, under article 26.1.1 of the Constitution, the President may, after consulting the council, refer to the Supreme Court any bill which is “repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof”.

It clarified that, in particular, it is concerned with sections 56 and 57 of the bill, which refer to the right of a family member of a “qualified person” to enter and reside in the State and the criteria which must be met by each. There are concerns the bill narrows the definition of the “family”.

It also questions whether the bill is “repugnant” to section 42a of the Constitution, which refers to children and would include the rights of children with refugee status.

Finally it asks whether section 78 of the bill — which requires an amendment to the Immigration Act 1999 in relation to enforcement of deportation orders — is “repugnant” to article 29.6 of the Constitution which states that no international agreement will be part of the State’s domestic law unless that is determined by the Oireachtas.

Council of State member and social campaigner Ruairí McKiernan welcomed the President’s decision to convene the council. “The bill contains elements that are harsh and inhumane, it’s missing necessary checks and balances, and it does nothing to end the cruel system of direct provision,” he said.