1 Matching decision-making capacity
to the number of applications
1. The number of people seeking asylum in the United
Kingdom stood at the highest recorded levels between 1999 and
2002, before almost halving in 2003. The high levels of applications
led to a large backlog of cases awaiting an initial decision and
subsequently to an increasing volume of appeals. At its peak,
in 1999, the number of applications outstanding in the system
stood at 129,000 (Figure 2). At the time of our previous
examination, in 2000, the Home Office had been unable to predict
when the backlogs of applications would be cleared, and the backlogs
have persisted. In June 2004, however, the Directorate forecast
that the number of applications outstanding at the initial stage
would be reduced to "work-in-progress" levels by the
end of 2004. The Appellate Authority's forecast for its work-in-progress
at the end of 2004 was for between 24,000 and 27,000 cases.[3]Figure
2: Undecided asylum applications and appeals, 1995-2003
The backlog of asylum applications and appeals peaked
in 1999 at 129,000 cases, and stood at over 60,000 cases in December
2003
Notes
1. Applications outstanding includes some
cases that were being worked. It excludes secondary casework such
as the Directorate's reconsideration of flawed initial decisions.
Numbers of applications outstanding before 2000 are not directly
comparable with later years because methods of collecting data
were less reliable in earlier years.
2. Appeals outstanding includes some appeals
that have been listed for hearing or heard but not decided. The
backlog of appeals prior to 2000 may be under-stated owing to
incomplete information at the Directorate.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Home
Office asylum statistics
2. Applicants are not usually allowed to work while
they are awaiting a decision on their claim but they can apply
for financial support and accommodation while their case is considered.
In 2002-03 the average cost of processing an application at the
initial decision stage, including support costs, was estimated
as £3,380, and the average cost of an appeal to adjudication
stage was estimated at £4,520. Cases can become more complex
to resolve the longer they are in the system. For example the
applicants' dependants may arrive, and the political situation
in the country of origin may alter. If subsequently refused asylum,
it becomes more difficult for the applicants to leave and for
the Directorate to remove them.[4]
3. The National Audit Office estimated that around
£500 million, mainly support and accommodation costs, could
have been saved if sufficient capacity had been in place in 1999
and 2000 to maintain outstanding applications at work-in-progress
levels, although they also recognised the practical issues to
be overcome in deploying sufficient staff and infrastructure.
The Home Office acknowledged that it had not anticipated the rise
in applications in 1999 and 2000, and that it did not have sufficient
trained personnel available. This situation had been exacerbated
by the failed implementation of a new computer system considered
in our earlier report.[5]
The Directorate had increased the number of caseworkers from 355
in August 2000 to 769 in February 2001, and the Appellate Authority
had increased court room capacity and the number of adjudicators.
The Home Office was now working with the Foreign Office and the
Department for Constitutional Affairs to better predict the volume
of applications likely to be received from different countries
and to take action to anticipate these changes. The Department
for Constitutional Affairs also believed that more effective planning
systems were now in place.[6]
4. Having increased the number of caseworkers dealing
with applications to 769 in February 2001, the Directorate then
decided to redeploy some staff working on applications to removing
failed applicants. The National Audit Office estimated that had
the staff been left in place for a further six months, the backlog
at the initial stage would have been almost cleared and estimated
costs of around £200 million (part of, not additional to
the £500 million) could have been avoided. The caseworkers
would then have been available for redeployment. The Home Office
considered that the obligation to support families up to the point
of removal would have reduced such savings. The Directorate also
estimated that approximately £50 million had been saved on
asylum support costs by increasing the number of family removals
as a result of the redeployment of the staff and that further
savings may have arisen from deterring unfounded applications
as a result.[7]
5. The Directorate has continuing commitments under
fixed-term contracts agreed with landlords to pay for accommodation
for asylum seekers despite reductions in the numbers. As the number
of applicants has fallen, homes previously used to accommodate
asylum applicants have fallen empty. The Home Office explained
that to avoid paying spot market prices for accommodation, it
had signed longer term contracts. The reduction in asylum intake
and backlogs had, however, occurred more quickly than it had expected,
and it was now renegotiating the contracts to help reduce costs.[8]
6. The Directorate and Appellate Authority are now
dealing with a rise in the number of people seeking to renew their
permission for short-term protection. Short-term protection is
granted for a limited period of time to those unsuccessful asylum
applicants who have a need for international protection or have
other compelling reasons for not being removed. Until 2003, applicants
gaining protection were often granted four years Exceptional Leave
to Remain after which they would, upon application, usually be
granted indefinite leave to remain. Since April 2003, the Directorate's
normal policy had been to grant initial protection for no more
than three years and to grant further leave (whether limited or
indefinite) only where an applicant still qualified for such leave
at the time of their subsequent application. The Directorate recognised
that the change in policy would place new demands on its own resources
and on the appeal process. Three teams of case workers were processing
such applications and this number would be doubled. Less pressure
from new asylum applications would enable it to manage the additional
workload.[9]
7. The Directorate had sought to expand its removal
capacity to deal with the number of failed applicants coming through
the system. The number of removals increased from around 7,500
in 1999 to 17,000 in 2003. The Home Office acknowledged, however,
that the number removed was significantly lower than the number
refused asylum. Some countries of origin were reluctant to provide
the necessary documentation to enable failed applicants to return
and some applicants concealed their real identity. The Directorate
had opened discussions with a number of countries to improve the
arrangements for obtaining documentation. Failed applicants might
also access services to which they are no longer entitled, for
example education services, and therefore had less of an incentive
to leave voluntarily.[10]
3 7th Report from the Committee of Public
Accounts, Home Office: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's
Casework Programme (HC 130, Session 1999-2000), para 6(i);
C&AG's Report, para 3.4, Figures 3 and 14 Back
4
C&AG's Report, paras 7, 3.10 Back
5
7th Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, Home
Office: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Casework
Programme (HC 130, Session 1999-2000) Back
6
Qq 14, 17, 27, 44-47, 145; C&AG's Report, para 3.8 and Appendix
5 Back
7
Qq 12, 14, 86; Ev 18; C&AG's Report, para 3.9 and Appendix
5 Back
8
Qq 32-33 Back
9
Qq 50-56; C&AG's Report, para 1.9 Back
10
Qq 48, 78-80, 86, 136-137 Back
|