APPEALS PROCESS: better decision making needed if single-tier system is to go ahead

Proposals to introduce a single tier of appeal in asylum cases should only go ahead if the Home Office can operate efficiently on initial decision making, a parliamentary select committee said this week.

Reporting on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the home affairs select committee argued that if the government were to forge ahead with simplifying the appeals process, it had to 'show a clear reduction in the number of successful appeals at the first-tier, adjudication level'.

The report backed provisions on giving the Immigration Services Commissioner enhanced powers - including the authority to carry out raids on law firms suspected of sheltering unqualified advisers.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'We welcome and support the committee's recommendation that the new appeals system should only be introduced if and when [initial decision making] has significantly improved.'

But Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said that delaying the changes would still fail to halt the proposed 'virtual dismantling' of judicial scrutiny over the tribunal system and the executive.

'I agree that Home Office decision making needs to be improved now, before the changes are introduced, but the real worry is that the reduction of appeal rights and the absence of judicial review will serve to protect the bad decision-makers of the future,' he warned.

Meanwhile, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has temporarily backed down on using interviews and written tests to select new immigration contract holders in London after talks with the Law Society about the lack of consultation.

A Society spokesman said: 'Pending the outcome of these discussions, the LSC has agreed that no decisions on award of contracts will be made on interviews and tests already conducted.'

An LSC spokesman said it had been transparent about the process but would not be making any decisions about contracts until next year.

'We are satisfied that the process we are undertaking is both fair and reasonable, but are happy to discuss it with the Law Society.'

Paula Rohan