Keeping up standards

Despite poor press coverage, meagre pay and dwindling numbers in the field, Janet Paraskeva is determined to maintain high standards of service among immigration solicitors

The tabloid press has been quick to launch attacks on people seeking asylum in the UK.

They have been equally swift in heaping disapproval on those who represent them.

And in expressing their derogatory views about asylum seekers, the tabloid press has also targeted those lawyers who practise in immigration law.

When the popular media criticise asylum lawyers, it is probably not because they are concerned that vulnerable immigrants might be ripped off - it is primarily because they are afraid the lawyers will be effective.

It is very dispiriting that those who work so hard, on miserable rates of pay, to support and advise some of the most unfortunate and vulnerable individuals in our midst, should be so unfairly and wrongly condemned.

These instinctive and unthinking views deserve our contempt.

But the prominence given to immigration in some parts of the media does shed light on the political debate about the issue.

It is disappointing that the government's policy on immigration seems to have been affected by these views - many people expect a more open and humane approach.

The desire to reduce the number of asylum seekers, and to deal with their applications more quickly and cheaply, places lawyers very squarely in the public eye.

The government's objectives are legitimate provided that they are not achieved at the expense of due process.

The Law Society's responsibility, as regulator, is to guarantee the provision of good-quality immigration advice, ensuring access to justice and protecting the public interest.

Asylum seekers are one of the most vulnerable groups and can be too easily exploited.

For this reason, we need to be especially diligent in our commitment to their protection.

Poor service and improper conduct in immigration work cannot be tolerated, just as they are not tolerated in any other field of law.

Bad practice must be rooted out.

While our commitment to good immigration advice is real, so too are the practical problems.

One of the major challenges is that there is shortage of good-quality solicitors and other advisers to meet the need for advice.

This problem is severely exacerbated by the low levels of remuneration for those working in immigration.

There is also little doubt that for immigration work, the Legal Services Commission has needed to contract with some firms with which, ideally, it would rather not.

But given the government's apparent objective of discouraging immigration, there is little incentive for solicitors to take up immigration practice.

Along with very low rates of pay and the constraints on public funding, this means that long-term prospects are not promising.

Yet, while we do not wish to exacerbate the problem, we cannot respond to this shortage by tolerating standards of service which would be unacceptable in other areas.

The Law Society takes its regulatory responsibilities in this area very seriously.

We are working with the Immigration Services Commissioner and the Legal Services Commission to develop and maintain quality standards.

Our approach has a number of strands.

One is through the establishment of accreditation panels.

The immigration law panel was established in 1999.

However, to date it has only 103 members.

One reason for that is the absence of incentives to join: legal aid fees are the same for panel members as for other solicitors.

It is a priority for us to enhance the value of the panel and we are currently redeveloping it to ensure its relevance.

We also need to look at developing a protocol for solicitors dealing with immigration work.

In other areas of practice - such as family law - these protocols have had a significant impact, both raising standards within the profession and demonstrating the Society's commitment to doing so.

A protocol in this vein would build on existing guidance produced by the Society as well as work done on best practice by organisations such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.

Improving immigration advice is not only about developing practitioners' skills and expertise - though, naturally, that is a priority.

It is also about trying to ensure that asylum seekers and other immigration applicants know what assistance they can expect.

The Law Society recently contributed to the production of a leaflet for immigration detainees, providing information about where they can get advice and what they can expect from a legal adviser.

We are also planning to produce an information note for solicitors to help them know how best to lobby MPs on an immigration client's case.

Finally, we will, of course, continue to press for proper remuneration for those who provide immigration advice.

This is a very important area of public service law, where our justice system holds the future well-being of many vulnerable people in its hands.

Asylum and immigration applicants are entitled to good quality assistance and advice.

The Law Society is striving to ensure that that is the case.

While government has substantially increased the resources it has devoted to decision making, appeals and enforcement, it should also be striving to ensure that those who provide that advice are fairly remunerated.

Janet Paraskeva is chief executive of the Law Society