Evidence submitted by AVID Association
of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AIA 36)
GOVERNMENT RETHINK
ON ASYLUM
FUNDING PROPOSALS
Following the publication of the Fourth Report
on the above proposals, we would like to offer the following comments:
— We welcome the suggestion of a financial
threshold, particularly for those cases being dealt with in detention.
— Attendance at interviews for complex
cases is also welcomed. However, the use of a single interpreter
gives rise to concern, as the quality of their work cannot be
checked.
— Accreditation of interpreters is
no guarantee that bias will not be shown. We are aware of a case
where the detainee does not trust a single interpreter and needs
a further interpreter to ensure complete impartiality. Often a
life is at stake and we would suggest that interviews are recorded
and checked where necessary in order to maintain quality and probity.
— We welcome the suggested accreditation
system and regulation by use of the OISC. All legal representatives
would benefit from regulation by the OISC and we hope this will
be part of the final scheme.
— We welcome the acceptance that the
time allowed for preparation of casework is extremely low and
will encourage unscrupulous, unprincipled and unskilled practitioners
to continue their bad practice.
— Best practice would indicate that
completion of SEF forms and other documents should be done by
a legal representative if all the evidence was to support a fair,
and speedy decision.
— With regard to quality control, what
other steps are being envisaged to prevent touting in other Centres
and at airports and other ports of entry?
— Detainees, in particular, often arrive
late at hearings and although this is outside the remit of the
current proposals, an area of concern is the quality of the escort
services, would save immense amounts of wasted time for the Courts.
This would also benefit the access of Barristers to their clients,
saving time waiting and travelling.
In view of the number of practitioners who have
already left the immigration law field, are plans also in hand
for ensuring that the 1999 Access to Justice Act is ensured?
The access to legal advice from Removal Centres
is already very difficult. Groups who support the detainees are
finding it increasingly hard to obtain representation for those
who are receiving poor service or who had long since lost their
legal representative. Some have been picked up for removal years
after entry and have no legal representative, others have been
moved from one Centre to another and their legal support has been
unable to visit or keep in touch.
We would ask that the Legal Services Commission
look closely at the situation with regard to Removal Centres and
the legal representation available in the area.
We would also remind the Committee that until
the quality of decision making is improved at the initial stage,
there will continue to be challenges and need for legal representation.
With 20-25% of decisions being overturned at Appeal, the costs
to the LSC are unlikely to change.
Helen Ireland
11 November 2003
|
