Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


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 threshold—rather than a time threshold—for 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 advice—whether by time limits or financially—plays 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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 26 January 2004