A committee of MPs has expressed concern at the government's latest moves to overhaul the asylum system.

One of the key government aims of the legislation is to improve the efficeincy and quality of the appeals process for asylum seekers who had their initial claim turned down.

But the Commons constitutional affairs select committee warned in a report published on Wednesday that there were questions about the fairness of the system to be introduced under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill.

"The new proposals do too little to address the failings at the initial decision making level and the low level of Home Office representation at initial appeals, which must add to the delays in the system," said the report.

The MPs also said it was "unlikely" that the abolition of a tier of appeals can by increase the speed and improve the quality of judicial decisions.

"We doubt whether many of the proposals contained in the new Bill are necessary to deal with the current issues relating to asylum and immigration appeals," the report added.

While the committee said there should be action to prevent "abuse the appeals system", it added that it is "not clear how serious this problem is, or whether abolishing the second tier of appeals will prevent abuse".

The report also said that the right of appeal to the House of Lords should be retained.

And there were concerns about moves to restrict the availability of legal aid in asylum appeal cases.

"The adversarial process the system operates most fairly when both sides are represented competently," said the report.

"It is wrong in principle and inefficient in practice to deny legal help to those who need it in asylum and immigration cases."

The MPs also said that it was "unclear" what the impact of the changes would be on the system of immigration appeals.

The report added: "We are deeply concerned at the current disparity in success rates between oral appeals and appeals which have been decided only on the basis of the papers in relation to family visitors.

"This indicates that there may be substantial injustice done to those who decide not to opt for an oral appeal."