37. Second supplementary memorandum
submitted by The Refugee Council
THE WORK
OF THE
HOME OFFICE
AND ASYLUM
APPLICATIONS
I am writing to draw the Committee's urgent
attention to the asylum statistics published on 28 August which
confirm that a significant and substantial number of asylum applications
are unnecessarily delayed by wrongful refusals.
Through oral evidence and memoranda submitted
to its inquiries on removals and asylum applications, the Committee
is already aware that the Refugee Council believes that the asylum
determination system must be "front-loaded", ie resources
must be focused on getting good quality and defensible decisions
as soon as possible.
Although the Government deserves credit for
the increase in the number of decisions made, the number of appeals
upheld against Home Office refusals by adjudicators confirms—but
is not the only indicator—that poor decision-making is a
significant cause of unnecessary delay and cost in the determination
system.
This is why we welcome both the Committee's
concern with the "number of initial decisions which are not
sustained," (Asylum Removals; para 36) and also the focus
to be placed on this issue in the current inquiry on asylum applications.
High Number of wrongful refusals
The latest figures reveal that, between April
and June 2003, over one in five (21%) appeals determined were
allowed. Such a high rate of erroneous initial decisions would
be unacceptably high for routine Government decisions but where,
as in this case, these decisions are literally matters of life
and death, this demands urgent consideration and action.
Closer examination of these appeal statistics
reveals that the success rate for many countries is even higher.
For example, 35% of Somali and 30% of Zimbabwean appeals—Somalia
and Zimbabwe are currently the top two countries of origin of
asylum applicants—were successful. As a result, the majority
of refugees from some countries are only recognised as requiring
protection after first suffering the trauma and delay of a flawed
refusal.
Wrongful refusals: Added delays and costs
The delay that accompanies wrongful refusals
can be measured in terms of time and additional costs. The Government's
target time for an appeal to be resolved is within four months
of it being received by the appeal authorities. But because the
appeal authorities only receive appeals after the Home Office
has first passed them the relevant papers, a wrongful decision
often takes far longer than four months to be successfully appealed.
The additional costs to the taxpayer—including
the use of the adjudicator's time, legal fees and support costs
while the appeal is resolved—of a wrongful refusal that
is later overturned may not be available but are self-evidently
significant. This basic point must surely warrant a greater sense
of urgency within the Home Office than has been the case under
successive governments.
Wrongful refusals: History of neglect
Concerns regarding the quality of decision-making
have been raised consistently and repeatedly in recent years,
not least in debates on asylum legislation, but there has been
little attempt to tackle the problem. Successive governments have
introduced immigration and asylum legislation (1993, 1996, 1999
and 2002). Yet each has rapidly become unravelled because the
real problems in the system, such as decision-making, were ignored
in favour of action based on dubious perceptions about why asylum
seekers flee their homes and why they come to the UK.
In recent years, a number of sources have raised
concerns about the decision-making process, including:
— ". . . the best deterrent and
the best way of resolving the appalling shambles that is the current
system. . [is] . . . increasing the speed at which decisions are
taken." Then Home Office minister Mike O'Brien MP (Special
Standing Committee, Hansard, 18 May 1999; col 1599)
— The Public Accounts Committee stated
in a report on the IND's casework programme that the "unacceptable
delays" in the system were a burden on the taxpayer and were
producing "human misery" for the applicants and their
families. The Committee concluded: "The Home Office are not
living up to their responsibilities towards asylum seekers."
Public Accounts Committee, Seventh Report, 26 January 2000; para
6 (iii).
— "I agree with my hon Friend
that there is no point in having masses of appeals that could
have been resolved earlier and more effectively if the system
had been right." Home Secretary David Blunkett, 4 Feb 2002;
col 595.
Wrongful refusals: Monitoring and intervention
More recently, the Independent Race Monitor,
a post established by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
and held by Mary Coussey, has also expressed concern with the
quality of decisions being made. In her annual report published
in July 2003, she writes that officials responded by proposing
that if significantly more than 15% of appeals for a particular
nationality are lost each month, this could be a trigger for management
intervention.
While the acknowledgement by Home Office officials
that this is a problem is welcome, we believe the proposed course
of action is inadequate. Although we understand the Home Office's
reluctance to have a trigger for intervention set at the target
rate of 15%, it is clear that its suggestion envisages a very
stiff trigger mechanism. We question the likely effectiveness
of a system where a wrongful refusal rate significantly in excess
of 15% may warrant management intervention.
SUMMARY
The lesson of the last decade of changes in
the asylum system is that there can be no substitute to a properly
functioning asylum determination system. This means a system where
good quality decisions are made quickly so that those who meet
the refugee criteria or have other compelling reasons to stay
can be quickly identified and those who do not can go home. Yet,
when nearly every aspect of immigration and asylum policy has
been tinkered with in the last decade, this area has been neglected.
The latest statistics make a powerful case for urgent attention
to be paid to the quality of initial decisions.
Maeve Sherlock
Chief Executive
10 September 2003
| 
