Evidence submitted by the Refugee Council
(AIA 8)
COMMITTEE ON
THE LORD
CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT:
INQUIRY INTO
ASYLUM AND
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
1. The Refugee Council
1.1 The Refugee Council is the largest organisation
in the UK working with asylum seekers and refugees. We not only
give help and support, but also work with asylum seekers and refugees
to ensure their needs and concerns are addressed.
1.2 We are a strongly independent organisation
and registered as a charity. We are financed by a variety of sources
including government departments, the European Commission, trusts
and members.
1.3 We believe asylum seekers and refugees
should be treated with understanding and respect. Our services
aim to reflect this.
1.4 The Refugee Council is not a protection
agency and hence does not deal with the appellate authority on
a daily basis. We do not therefore propose to comment upon the
issues relating to efficiency and cost directly. Colleagues from
the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), the Refugee
Legal Centre (RLC) and the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS)
will no doubt be letting you know the details of their experiences.
2. General comments and concerns
2.1 We do welcome the efforts that have
been made to develop additional courts to hear cases in order
to expedite the process and ensure that cases are not unnecessarily
delayed. We agree that delay is in nobody's interest and have
always advocated for a fast and efficient approach provided it
is fair.
2.2 Having said this however we do have
serious concerns about the approach to the changes in the asylum
system in the UK that have been introduced in the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and accompanying measures and
these do relate to the appellate authority.
2.3 Our concerns can be simply stated. The
entire thrust of these measures is based upon management and control
and with the emphasis on speed of processing. The preoccupation
with numbers, and turning them around on a rapid timescale, has
engulfed the whole process to such an extent that basic safeguards
are seriously undermined. One such safeguard is the integrity
and independence of the appellate system.
2.4 There is nothing in these measures that
is designed to improve the quality and credibility of the decision
making process itself. In particular there has been a failure
to introduce measures that have long been advocated as contributing
to such improvements—"frontloading" quality legal
advice and an independent documentation centre. The result is
that we continue to have a decision making process which lacks
credibility—where decisions are either increasingly made
by category, based on country of origin, or scarcely make any
mention of the individual involved. This in turn places an undue
burden on the appellate authority as acting all too often as a
place of first effective decision.
2.5 This cannot be a situation with which
the appellate authority is happy. It cannot be right that the
appellate authority has to act as a sticking plaster over poor
quality decision making. Rather than improving the quality of
initial decisions the successive measures have reduced access
to the appeal process itself and simultaneously tightened access
to legal help by way of the merits test. Thus access to the process
is reduced, or at least made more difficult and finding representation
will be more problematic.
Thus to turn to your specific questions:
3. Efficiency and quality
— the extent to which recent reforms
have produced any significant efficiency savings and/or improved
the quality of the appeals process; and
— the extent to which "non-suspensive"
appeals provide an adequate right of appeal.
3.1 We do not believe that the quality of
the appeals process is improved by the measures taken to expedite
the process in the name of efficiency. We also believe that apparent
savings in the short term may be costlier in the long run. The
whole point of "frontloading" is to invest in good quality
decision making from the outset.
3.2 We are particularly opposed to the designation
of 17 countries as ones from which all asylum applications will
be deemed to be "clearly unfounded" and which carry
only a non-suspensive right of appeal. No country can be designated
as safe for all people at all times. There are concerns for example,
about the treatment of the Roma and people in same sex relationships
in some of the countries already so designated.
3.3 We believe the right of appeal from
the country of origin is ineffective as there are no real legal
safeguards to ensure that people have effective access to the
process and the sheer mechanics of the process, cut off from representatives
in the UK, militate against any effective redress.
4. Asylum Support Adjudicators and legal
aid
— the costs to public funds of supporting
new appeals structures, such as the Asylum Support Adjudicators,
and of supporting the extension of legal aid.
4.1 We are strongly of the opinion that
legal help should be available to represent claimants at NASS
appeals. The Chief Adjudicator has herself expressed concern that
so many people do appear before her unrepresented and with their
cases ill prepared. The other side of the coin is the fact that
in 40%[43]of
cases NASS simply concedes, accepting that they are not in a position
to defend the decision they have taken.
4.2 We strongly welcomed the extension of
legal help to the appeals process as a whole and would not wish
to see it curtailed by over strict interpretations of the merits
test. We do not accept that it is right that people should appear
before a court unrepresented.
5. Efficiency and fairness
— the extent to which the Immigration
Appellate Authorities could be made more efficient, without sacrificing
fairness;
— whether the relevant procedure rules
properly balance fairness and justice with efficiency; and
— whether there is sufficient availability
and provision both of legal advice and representation and of interpretation
facilities for appellants in asylum and immigration cases.
5.1 We continue to have concerns not only
about the basic availability of legal representation but also
the quality therein. There persists a general concern within the
sector about quality with some representatives still giving the
appearance of "going through the motions" and failing
adequately to advise and inform their clients. Where there are
concerns about the quality both of decision making, and of levels
of representation, it becomes all the more important to have the
safeguard of an effective appeals process.
5.2 We are particularly concerned about
the quality of the process being piloted at Harmondsworth where
it appears that there is a process in place which is so truncated
it cannot possibly be fair. To be dependent on a duty solicitor
scheme, relying on calling up people when required, seems unnecessarily
ad hoc when there is a workable model at Oakington of operating
with on site teams via RLC and IAS. This is also a highly specialised
area of law and we are concerned about whether all of the participants
in the duty solicitor scheme would have the same depth of experience
as the agencies involved in the Oakington process.
5.3 When the government began the process
of reform of the asylum system it set a target of "2+4"
(two months to decide and four months to appeal) but has now shifted
to making a significant number of decisions plus appeals within
two weeks. This is a significant change driven we believe by political
considerations with the fairness of the process a secondary factor.
29 April 2003
43 In 2001-02 NASS withdrew 898 out of 2142 ASA appeals Back
| 
