Audit Office calls for improvement in asylum decisions
A new report from the National Audit Office (NAO) has said that more progress is needed on the quality of initial asylum application decisions.
The NAO acknowledges that the Government’s drive to improve the system has reduced the time lag between application and decision, but points to the higher than statistically expected number of successful appeals.
Between October and December last year 80 per cent of asylum applications were decided within two months, as opposed to 61 per cent in the corresponding period in 2001.
With around 20 per cent of appeals against asylum rejections succeeding, the NAO notes that “significant costs are incurred in adjudicators addressing weaknesses in the handling of cases before decision and in paying support and accommodation costs until the appeal is heard.”
“The longer applications are left waiting for a final decision the greater the cost to the taxpayer in support and accommodation costs.”
The Government’s decision in 2001 to transfer a number of case workers to removal work is estimated by the NAO to have cost up to £200 million. It judges that: “If caseworkers had been retained on clearing initial decisions the costs saved would have been offset by the additional costs of not removing failed asylum applicants.”
The NAO also recommends improvements in training for caseworkers, noting that the 11 days initial training, and a minimum of 11 days mentoring, in the UK is significantly shorter than in Germany where workers receive between three and six months of training.
It suggests that that “continued training” in the UK should be considered, particularly in “developments in asylum law, preparation of refusal letters and human rights.”
The Auditor General, Sir John Bourn said: “Quick and soundly-based decisions on asylum applications reduce the cost to the taxpayer and uncertainty for the applicant.
“The Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Immigration Appellate Authority have been successful in making decisions on new applications much more quickly, hence my belief that had the Directorate maintained, for example, the capacity achieved in 2001 further substantial savings could have been made.”
“The complex challenges faced by the Directorate’s caseworkers should not be underestimated, however. Improved recruitment, more extensive training and more specialisation in dealing with particular types of cases would improve the quality of decision-making by the Directorate. Higher quality decision-making at the initial stage might save the taxpayer money and make it easier to return failed applicants more quickly to their country of origin.”
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said that the focus should not just be on efficiency. Mr Oaten argued: “The untold truth about the asylum system is that the Home Office rejects many refugees who are in need of protection.
“The fact that 38 per cent of Somalian appeals were successful in 2003 says a lot about the accuracy of civil servants’ decisions. This is not only a matter of cost and efficiency – it is very often a question of life and death.
“It is no wonder that Home Office officials have a tendency to disbelieve asylum seekers given the climate which surrounds these issues. There is an increasingly strong case for putting the responsibility for these decisions in the hands of an impartial body which can examine each case on its merits.”
The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said that the report showed the system “has been thrown into chaos by Labour’s obsession with targets.
“Pressure to meet processing targets leads to poor decision making, more appeals and spiralling costs to the taxpayer.”
“When security is a top priority, it is essential that we have faith in rigorous asylum and immigration procedures. It’s time the Government listened to these reports and fixed the system, not simply the figures”.
