Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence


Evidence submitted by East Midlands Consortium for Asylum and Refugee Support (EMCARS)

  1.  East Midlands Consortium for Asylum and Refugee Support (EMCARS) is committed to supporting all asylum seekers during their stay and to working to enable the fullest settlement and integration into society of all those granted leave to remain in this country.

  2.  We have grave concerns about any additional limitations for legal aid funding for asylum appeals. We have already experienced a notable decrease in the supply of legal advice and many private practices have closed their immigration departments due to tightened policy on the available legal aid funding within the past year. Some of our partners have raised concerns that it is simply impossible to do the required workload with the time limit of the funding available. Asylum cases by their definition are difficult and complex requiring extreme care at all times and it is rare that the applicant would have private funds available to cover the costs arising from the proceedings.

  3.  The Consultation paper for the new proposals[14] claims that the new procedure will support the desire of achieving a more fair, fast and efficient appeals process. Hence, "[T]o achieve this the number of weak cases seeking to overturn appeal decisions needs to be reduced".[15] The new single tier tribunal is designed to limit the applicant's appeal rights. This, per se may lead to unfair proceedings as according to the latest statistics over 30% of appeals are overturn. This suggests poor quality of the first instance decisions. Considering that the asylum claim affects a person's life, it is natural for the unsuccessful applicant to explore every possible appeal route. In order to produce fast and fair decisions, it ought to be more important to explore the reasons behind the first instance decisions and seek to ensure that the quality of these are improved as a priority. Access to appeal procedure is essential to ensure that also in the future any wrong first instance decisions are to be set right.

  4.  As established above, there is a significant decrease in the number of practices doing immigration work across the country. Many clients in our regions must in fact seek legal assistance from London areas where the supply is higher. We are not aware of a comprehensive study as to the reasons behind the lack of immigration advisers is our region, but we have highlighted this issue with the Legal Services Commission and will have a regional meeting about this matter in January 2005. We can however estimate from our partners that it is simply not profitable to take on cases which by their definition are complex and time consuming as the legal aid funding procedure takes a long time to complete with no guarantees of being refunded for the actual time used but simply being compensated for a fraction of it. We are told that some private practices will use the initial 5 hour limit and then drop the case to be picked up by charities. This seems to be because the initial workload is higher than five hours and application for extension takes unreasonable time and effort. Thus, it is not feasible for private practices to take the financial risk for not covering their time and costs.

  5.  It is our worry that after the proposed changes no private practice will take upon any other than extremely simple and clear cut cases if any. It is agreed that expenditure spent on asylum cases comprises high proportion in the legal aid budget. However, it is our view that as everyone has a right to seek refuge in accordance with Refugee Convention 1951[16] and that this right is not guaranteed unless it is ensured that the asylum process is and is seen to be fair and just. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that the asylum process is not only fair for those who have personal means to fund it.

  6.  Altogether, it seems clear that most asylum seekers are unable to represent themselves in the proceedings. Many cannot read, write or even speak English. In addition, the current asylum process is complex and to have a truly fair hearing, one needs qualified legal representation throughout the proceedings. It is our view that the proposed changes would inevitably lead to very unjust results and thereby would constitute unfair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1951. Hence, we feel that the proposal for retrospective funding is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Helen Everett

Regional Consortia Manager, EMCARS

January 2005







14   The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal-The Legal Aid Arrangements for Onward Appeals, p10 Consultation Paper Back

15   ibid Back

16   UN Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 23 March 2005