9. Memorandum submitted by
Coalition Against Legal Aid Cuts
THE COALITION
AGAINST LEGAL
AID CUTS
1. More than 80 organisations (listed in
Appendix 1) have joined together to form the Coalition Against
Legal Aid Cuts (CALAC). Together we condemn government proposals
to reduce legal aid for asylum seekers and immigrants, and state
that
"Drastic cuts in legal aid for migrants
and asylum seekers will undermine a vital human right. It is a
central principle of our justice system that all individuals are
entitled to a fair hearing. Denial of effective legal advice and
representation for these vulnerable groups will be a charter for
discrimination. We call upon the Government to abandon this proposal
that would deny essential legal representation."
Our coalition includes human rights groups,
refugee community organisations and support networks, law centres,
campaign groups and others who work to preserve the rights and
welfare of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers.
2. This submission has been written on behalf
of the coalition by its co-ordinator, Niamh McClean, in consultation
with coalition members. Members of the coalition may have already
made their own submissions, in this round or previously, but the
coalition decided to write to alert the Committee to the breadth
and seriousness of the concern about the Government's proposals.
This submission deals specifically with the impact of reduced
legal aid for asylum seekers on asylum applications, particularly
in light of recent government announcements of an amnesty for
15,000 families and proposed legislative changes to the asylum
system.
THE PROPOSAL
TO REDUCE
LEGAL AID
3. The Department for Constitutional Affairs
(DCA) issued a consultation paper on 5 June 2003 setting out proposals
to change publicly funded asylum and immigration work. Of greatest
concern to this coalition was the proposal to set limits on the
amount of time lawyers can spend helping asylum seekers and immigrants
prepare their initial applications and any appeals that may ensue.
4. On 24 October 2003 the DCA submitted
additional evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry
into these proposals, changing its original proposal of 5 June.
The new proposal, for which few details are available, sets a
financial thresholdrather than a time thresholdfor
preparation time up to the initial decision for asylum cases.
The coalition remains concerned that there are serious shortcomings
in the DCA's thinking on these issues. A limit on legal aid, or
a complex and time-consuming process of applying for extension,
for such an important legal process undermines a fundamental human
right to a fair hearing. Importantly, for the inquiry into asylum
applications by the Home Affairs Committee, reducing legal aid
for asylum seekers impacts on the quality of the asylum application
as this submission will detail.
IMPORTANCE OF
LEGAL AID
FOR GOOD
QUALITY ASYLUM
APPLICATIONS
5. Good quality legal advice is critical
for ensuring that sound decisions are made on asylum applications.
The DCA argues that there is a high failure rate in the asylum
application system, including at appeal stage, and that this demonstrates
waste in the legal aid system. It is not safe to assume that because
about 60% of asylum seekers fail to gain refugee status that legal
aid is being wasted. In its submission to the Constitutional Affairs
Committee, Wesley Gryk Solicitors, a well-respected immigration
law firm, demonstrated that of the cases it takes to appeal stage,
80% to 90% are successful. In fact, legal aid may be the decisive
factor in winning an asylum application.
LEGAL AID
CUTS WILL
DRIVE UP
THE COST
OF THE
APPLICATION SYSTEM
6. Furthermore the DCA argues that changes
to legal aid are designed to improve the quality of legal advice
available for asylum seekers and immigrants, which would have
a knock-on effect on improving the asylum application system.
However, capping legal advicewhether by time limits or
financiallyplays into the hands of unscrupulous lawyers
who will accept cases even though they do not have adequate time
to prepare them and drive out good lawyers. Many lawyers have
already been prompted to notify the DCA that they will be unable
to provide asylum advice at all. This will mean that the asylum
application system becomes even less reliable for making sound
decisions, creating more appeals and complaints and unnecessarily
driving up the cost of the asylum system.
GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
TO ALLOW
15,000 ASYLUM SEEKING
FAMILIES TO
STAY
7. The recent government announcement that
it will allow up to 15,000 families to stay if they claimed asylum
in the UK prior to 2 October 2000 is to be welcomed. It is of
concern to this coalition, however, that the DCA did not take
account of the impact this new measure would have on reducing
the legal aid budget. Many of these families would have needed
legal advice for their applications, and for appealing negative
decisions, thereby increasing the legal aid budget. Now that they
will no longer be in the asylum system a consequent drop in spending
on legal aid must be expected. In fact, one of the reasons given
by the Home Office for this change in policy is to reduce costs
in the asylum system. The proposal to reduce legal aid should
now be abandoned given that the budget will see huge reductions
in any case.
CHANGES TO
THE ASYLUM
APPEAL SYSTEM
8. Changes to the asylum appeal system increase
the importance of access to good quality legal advice. Reducing
appeal provisions will mean that asylum seekers will have just
one chance to be successful. Imposing a limit on the amount of
advice asylum seekers are entitled will inhibit their ability
to appeal properly and fairly. This has grave consequences not
just for asylum seekers but also for the British justice system.
Reducing legal aid cuts while also reducing the right to appeal
for asylum seekers undermines the human right to a fair hearing
and the right to seek asylum.
November 2003
|