FUNDING: prior permission needed for more than five hours of initial advice

Immigration practitioners have hit out at government plans to cut down on avenues of appeal and limit legal aid in asylum cases, warning that it will push the system too far in favour of the state.

The backlash came following last week's publication of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was unveiled alongside changes to legal aid by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA).

The Bill proposes a single tier of appeal and restricting access to judicial review to bring 'speed and finality' to the appeals process.

It also includes measures aimed at combating organised criminals who abuse the system.

The Immigration Services Commissioner (ISC) will be given the power to raid the premises of illegal immigration advisers, and of law firms accused of sheltering them, while designated professional bodies, such as the Law Society, will be required to comply with requests for information from the ISC.

There will also be a new criminal offence of advertising or offering immigration advice when unqualified.

On legal aid, the DCA will introduce in May 2004 a new five-hour threshold for preparing asylum cases up to the initial Home Office decision.

This will initially be phased in with a seven-hour threshold applying from April next year.

Solicitors will only be able to exceed the threshold with prior permission of the Legal Services Commission on a case-by-case basis; this also applies to appeals.

The government estimates that prior authorisation will save 30 million in 2004-5.

Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, slated the 'terrifying' appeals proposal that would leave people's fates 'hanging on the vagaries' of a single hearing.

With the legal aid cut, he accused the Home Office of 'stacking the decks' because it was so unsure of its own decision-makers.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'A second-tier appeal is essential in view of the poor quality of Home Office decision-making at the initial stage, which means that in many cases, adjudicators are, in effect, the first decision-making body.'

She added that the ISC's powers needed careful consideration because of the possible impact on legal professional privilege.

Paula Rohan