Plans to replace cash welfare payments to asylum-seekers with a scheme which may include vouchers for food and accommodation could fall foul of the Constitution, lawyers have warned.
The switch to "direct provision" for asylum-seekers was given the go-ahead last month by the Cabinet, and the Government plans to bring in a cashless system by the spring.
But the lawyers, including Mr Michael Farrell, the co-chairman of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, say such a scheme could contravene the "equality guarantee" in the Constitution.
Mr Farrell said there was a belief in legal circles that a direct provision scheme may be open to legal challenge under Article 40 (1), which says all citizens shall "as human persons" be held equal before the law.
Mr Farrell said courts had always held that rights conferred in the Constitution were not confined to citizens, which meant asylum-seekers would be entitled to rely on the equality guarantee.
The Government recently established an inter-departmental directorate to plan for direct provision for 8,000 asylum-seekers as well as managing moves to locate them outside Dublin.
Ms Berenice O'Neill, an assistant secretary in the Department of Justice, said direct provision could, but did not have to, include vouchers for food or accommodation and smart cards. Ms O'Neill said it was important for the Republic to switch to direct provision by next April when the UK did so, or this State would be seen as more attractive to asylum-seekers.
Ms Teresa Blake, a barrister, cautioned that any such proposals would have to be "human-rights-proofed" to ensure that they complied with the State's obligations under international law.
Mr Gerry Whyte, a senior lecturer at the law school in TCD, said direct provision could raise a constitutional difficulty by discriminating on the grounds of nationality.
Concerns about plans for direct provision have also been voiced by the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, which gives policy advice to the Government. Its director, Mr Philip Watt, said direct provision could lead to "petty humiliations" and further segregation of asylum-seekers.