The government has improved its mechanisms for dealing with asylum applications but much more needs to be done to ensure a fair system, argues Peter Williamson

Asylum seekers are undoubtedly one of the most vulnerable groups in society.

As such they can too often be exposed to exploitation.

It is for this reason that we need to be especially diligent in our commitment to their protection.

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.

It is imperative that legal advisers provide high quality advice and operate honestly.

The Society is working hard, in partnership with the Legal Services Commission and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner to promote high quality standards and to root out the minority of immigration solicitors who fail to meet the standards required.

However, the government too has a duty to ensure that the system for determining asylum claims is fair, efficient and of a high quality.

Proposals to replace the current asylum and immigration appeal system have been outlined in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill.

Under the current system, when an application for asylum fails, the individual concerned has the right to appeal - at the first level to an immigration adjudicator and at the second to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (IAT).

If permission to appeal to the IAT is refused, an application for statutory review of the refusal can be made.

Statutory reviews are a modified form of judicial review and are dealt with by a High Court judge on written applications.

The government is now seeking to introduce a single tier asylum and immigration tribunal, and to restrict severely the ability of the higher courts to exercise their normal supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunal through judicial review.

Government thinking behind the changes is that they will somehow help to curb abuse of the system and eradicate inherent delays.

The Law Society is certainly at one with the government in terms of ensuring that asylum applications procedures are fast, effective and fair.

However, we have grave concerns about the effects of these proposals and seriously question their legitimacy.

The fact is that the allegation that there is widespread abuse of the system and unnecessary delay is not borne out by the statistics.

The government has itself trumpeted the fact that the number of asylum applications has fallen considerably.

Home Office figures published in November showed that applications were down 52%, with 4,225 applications in September 2003 compared with 8,770 in October 2002.

According to the government, more than 80% of initial decisions are now made within two months, and the number of cases awaiting decision is at its lowest for a decade.

It seems the government is well on its way to establishing a much speedier system.

The Law Society supports this, provided there are appropriate safeguards to ensure fairness.

What is the justification for the Draconian measures proposed in the Bill? It will, we believe, lead to serious injustice and potentially put lives at risk.

There is no doubt that the tabloid press has been quick to launch attacks on people seeking asylum in the UK, and these newspapers have been equally swift in heaping disapproval on those who represent them.

It would be extremely disappointing to conclude that the government's policy on immigration has in fact been driven by tabloid hysteria.

One of the key reasons for needing a robust appeals system is the obvious inadequacy of decisions made by the Home Office at the initial stage.

As a result the IAT, which is technically the second tier, effectively becomes the first instance decision-making body.

The need for high-quality decision making at the earliest stage and proper appeal mechanisms against decisions, which do not appear to have been made fairly, cannot be under estimated.

The Law Society maintains that the government's proposals to restrict judicial review go far beyond what is reasonable.

The ability of the judiciary to oversee the actions of administrative tribunals is fundamental to the rule of law.

The proposal to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court is unprecedented.

Bearing in mind that decisions on claims for asylum can literally be life or death matters for the individual concerned, it is especially reprehensible that the government should seek to eliminate proper judicial scrutiny of decisions in these cases.

The government wants to eradicate exploitation and time wasting.

It wants a fair, effective and swift asylum application system.

The Law Society is wholeheartedly committed to these aims provided they are not achieved at the expense of access to justice and due process.

The Society considers the key to achieving these laudable goals is to get it right first time, through significant improvements in the quality of decisions made on initial application.

It is failure at this early stage that gives rise to escalating costs and unnecessary problems further along the process.

The government must know that in a democratic society it is entirely unacceptable for political objectives to be secured at the cost of an individual's right to a fair hearing.

Peter Williamson is the Law Society President