News

Refugee campaigners, human rights organisations and immigration law practitioners joined force this week to fight against the government’s proposals to reduce legal aid available to asylum seekers to just five hours – a move they warn could hit the most vulnerable, destitute members of our society, writes Clare Jerrom.

Around 60 representatives from different organisations attended an emergency meeting held in London this week to find out what could be done to tackle the proposals, set out in a consultation document launched in June by the Lord Chancellor’s Department – now the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

“The general consensus was that we are extremely concerned, shocked and alarmed by the changes proposed,” said a spokesperson from Liberty, the human rights campaigners.

The department proposes that the time allowed for providing initial advice in an asylum case should be limited to a maximum of five hours’ work - there is no restriction at present..

Legal aid costs have risen from £81.3 million in 2000-2001 to £174.2 million in 2002-2003 and the consultation attributes this to continued increases in the number of asylum seekers, the increased rate at which cases are processed, the increase in appeals and the effects of the dispersal policy.

“Resources limited”

While the government is committed to protecting people at risk of loss of liberty or life, it also has a duty to ensure that the taxpayer “receives value for money” in relation to public service expenditure, the consultation document says. Legal aid has to compete with other calls on taxpayers’ money such as schools and hospitals and resources are limited.

The consultation says the government still has concerns regarding the quality of work undertaken by a significant minority of immigration suppliers. But it is proposing an accreditation scheme for solicitors to address this issue.

However, many of the organisations who attended the emergency meeting feel that the consultation’s plans will exacerbate these problems rather than solve them.

Alasdair Mackenzie, member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association executive committee acknowledges the government has already taken measures to raise the quality of legal advisers. However the time restrictions will undermine the work they have done as it will “reduce everyone to the standard of the worst advisers”.

A Refugee Action spokesperson warned that many quality legal firms will be forced out of asylum work because they cannot undertake a good job within the time frame. “This will result in asylum cases being poorly prepared by the least competent of legal advisers, leading to injustice and even more appeals and reviews”.

And as the Liberty spokesperson recognises – further appeals and action against the state will “if anything, escalate the costs”.

The group says a cap on hours cannot be provided as there is no such thing as an average case. Mackenzie says in a complicated case, asylum seekers can talk for hours just to get their story across, but solicitors also need to research the case, interview witnesses, obtain human rights information and prepare a statement.

“They need time”

Steve Symonds senior case worker at Asylum Aid, highlights that some asylum seekers have difficulties disclosing information. Those who have been raped, tortured, are a victim of trafficking or held in detention have particular difficulties and “will need time to build trust and confidence”.

After the five hours, asylum seekers must pay for further services and this means that those with money will “unfairly benefit” over the destitute, the Liberty spokesperson warns. “These measures are really targeting the most vulnerable members of society.”

ILPA warns that a lot of solicitors will be driven out of practice or will reduce the case load of those taking on publicly funded asylum cases. Sarah Cutler policy officer at Bail for Immigration Detainees, warns this could have a “disastrous” effect on people in detention, many of whom already have difficulties accessing legal representation.

In an inspection report of Lindholme removal centre in Doncaster, chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers found that 75 per cent of detainees did not know how to obtain legal advice or a solicitor, and 27 per cent were without representation. Cutler warns the new measures will simply exacerbate their difficulties.

Symonds also warns of the knock-on effect on other public services. MPs’ surgeries are likely to be inundated by asylum seekers who without legal representation are unsure of what to do. Other already overstretched services such as hospitals, schools and social services could become targets for asylum seekers needing assistance.

Refugee Action has further concerns that the proposals are part of the government’s wider efforts to reduce asylum applications. “By cutting legal aid, the government will make it much more difficult to make a successful asylum application.”

“This would undermine the rights of asylum seekers to advice and representation which will inevitably lead to people being sent back to countries where they face persecution and possibly death,” the spokesperson added.

The organisations are to submit their concerns in response to the consultation which is drawing to a close at the end of August. Although Symonds is not “overly optimistic” about the amount of consideration the concerns will receive, he thinks it is imperative  the fears are placed on the record.

The ILPA makes its own suggestion: “The Home Office Immigration Department is a legendary inefficient body,” Mackenzie says, adding that if costs need to be reduced, maybe the government should look to its own quarters first?