Press Release - Improving the Speed and Quality of Asylum
Decisions
23 June 2004
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the
Immigration Appellate Authority have increased the speed of
the asylum decision-making process but further improvements can be
made, with consequent savings in support and accommodation costs
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate also needs to make
further improvements to the quality of decision-making, according
to a report to Parliament by the head of the National Audit Office,
Sir John Bourn.
The Directorate has substantially reduced the number of
undecided applications at the initial stage from a peak of over
120,000 at the end of 1999 to 24,500 by the end of 2003, and a
further fall to 18,100 at the end of March 2004. The fall reflects
the high volume of decisions made by the Directorate and has been
assisted by a downturn in the number of applications since the
beginning of 2003, which is due, in part, to a range of measures
taken by the Directorate. Also, between October and December 2003,
80 per cent of asylum applications were decided within two months
compared to 61 per cent of relevant cases in 2001-02. Around
9 per cent of applications now receive an initial decision
within a few days using the Directorate’s fast track procedures
which are suited to more straightforward cases.
The Directorate’s drive, however, to reduce processing times
needs to work in step with improvements in the quality of initial
decision-making. The consideration of applications can be complex.
Many applicants do not possess any form of identification, some
deliberately, whilst some, with harrowing stories, need to be
treated with special sensitivity. Caseworkers, in our view, receive
less training than they should. Pressure to meet processing
targets, the complexity of some cases and a lack of clear ownership
within the process for decisions once the case is passed onto the
next stage lead to some issues having to be resolved unnecessarily
at the appeal stage. With around three-quarters of applicants
refused asylum at the initial stage appealing against the decision,
around 80 per cent unsuccessfully, 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 heard3.
Lessons can be learned from the large number of applications in
the asylum system between 1999 and 2003. The longer applications
are left waiting for a final decision the greater the cost to the
taxpayer in support and accommodation costs. The Directorate
considers that it would not have been able to expand its capacity
to the extent required to clear applications as they came in, due
to practical limits on recruiting and training staff and building
up support infrastructure. The Appellate Authority had expanded its
capacity in stages. In its view, limits on the availability of
judiciary and interpreters – without compromising standards – would
not have allowed the required capacity to be achieved in one go.
There is an important lesson for public bodies in general.
Decisions over what capacity to plan for and maintain, and the
associated costs, need to take account of the potential additional
costs that may be incurred on other budgets, in this case support
and accommodation costs, should administrative capacity fall short
of the incoming volume of work.
When the Directorate did scale up the rate at which applications
were processed in 2000 and 2001, this was reduced later in 2001 to
enable some caseworkers to be transferred to asylum removals work.
We estimate that if the rate at which cases were being processed at
the initial stage had been maintained at 2001 rates into 2002,
possibly for no more than six months, additional costs of up to
£200 million could have been avoided. The Directorate judged that
its priority lay with building up its removals capacity. In its
view, 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 believes
that there was a need to adequately resource both the applications
and removals stages to minimise the support incurred and reduce
uncertainty for genuine applicants.
Over the last two years, the Directorate and Appellate Authority
have sought to work together more effectively to target investment
at key bottlenecks in the system, at both the initial decision
stage, at appeal, and more recently at the removal stage. As the
number of undecided applications approaches normal work-in-progress
levels, the Directorate and Appellate Authority may decide to
redeploy some of their existing resources to other priorities.
Future management of processing capacity, including staff,
equipment and office space will, however, need to remain
sufficiently flexible to respond promptly should world events again
lead to a rise in the number of applications. The Directorate and
Appellate Authority consider that they have learned from
experience, and have sought to build in flexibility and improve
resilience to better manage an increase in the numbers of asylum
applications, for example by using a better balanced judicial
complement using fixed term and salaried part-time contracts.
Today’s report identifies scope to further reduce the time taken
to process applications, thereby leading to potential savings, but
without necessarily reducing the time spent by caseworkers
considering each application. The measures suggested include making
better use of the capacity that is already available in the fast
track process, and redesigning elements of the initial decision
stage to reduce the "down-time" normally allowed when processing
applications, saving an estimated £21 million for example. And a
number of specific actions are recommended for strengthening the
quality of initial decision-making, including better training for
staff and for strengthening the Directorate’s quality assurance
arrangements.
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."
Notes for Editors:
- The Immigration and Nationality
Directorate, part of the Home Office, is responsible for deciding
asylum applications and for supporting applicants during the
process. Its objective is to process applications efficiently,
focusing the asylum system on those genuinely fleeing persecution
by taking speedy, high quality decisions. The definition of a
refugee is set out by the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees. The Directorate also assesses whether an
applicant’s human rights, as defined by the 1950 European
Convention on Human Rights would be infringed by the applicant’s
removal from the UK. In 2003, it received 49,370 applications and
it made 64,605 initial decisions, including 3,880 decisions to
grant asylum (refugee status).
- The Immigration Appellate
Authority, part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, hears
appeals against decisions to refuse asylum. It has two tiers,
Immigration Adjudicators and Immigration Appeal Tribunal. In 2003,
45,500 failed asylum applicants lodged adjudicator appeals and
adjudicators determined 81,725 appeals, and found in favour of the
asylum applicant in 16,070 cases.
- Unit cost estimates for 2002-03
were prepared by the Directorate and the Department for
Constitutional Affairs and their reasonableness was reviewed by the
National Audit Office. The estimated unit cost of processing asylum
application up to the initial decision was £4,060 (including £1,200
in asylum support costs) and an appeal to the adjudicator was
estimated to cost £4,520 (including £1,980 in asylum support
costs).
- Press notices and reports are available from the date of
publication on the NAO website at www.nao.org.uk
Hard copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office on 0845
7023474. In addition to this report and in response to a request by
the Home Office, Sir John Bourn reported on 25 May 2004 on the
Quarterly Asylum Statistics published by the Home
Office.
- The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is the
head of the National Audit Office which employs some 800 staff. He
and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the
accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other
public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to
Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which
departments and other bodies have used their resources.
Press Notice 48/04
All enquiries to Bill Schaper, NAO Press Office:
Tel: 020 7798 7335
Mobile: 07795 120838