Jill Goldsmith
Audit Manager, Home Affairs & Justice VFM
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SP
Dear Jill,
NAO study: Deciding applications for asylum
Thank you for your letter of 7 May, addressed to David Harker, to which I have been asked to reply. I am sorry not to have been able to give you an earlier reply.
As you are aware from our meeting in January, the 530 Citizens Advice Bureaux in England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with some 60,000 asylum and immigration advice enquiries every year, including an estimated 15-20,000 asylum support-related enquiries. Currently, 24 of these Citizens Advice Bureaux hold a contract in immigration with the Legal Services Commission and/or are registered at Level 3 with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, and are thus able to offer advice, casework assistance and representation in relation to asylum applications and appeals. However, many other Citizens Advice Bureaux report being approached by asylum seekers wanting assistance with their asylum application or appeal; in such cases, the bureau will usually refer the individual to sources of specialist legal advice.
1. The timeliness of initial decisions by IND
Despite the welcome progress since early 2000 in reducing the backlog of outstanding asylum applications, Citizens Advice Bureaux continue to report dealing with cases of inordinate delay on the part of IND in making an initial decision on the asylum claim. For example:
Sydenham CAB reports being approached in December 2002 by an Eritrean woman who applied for asylum in late 1996, but who was still awaiting an initial decision by IND.
Dagenham CAB reports being approached in April 2003 by a Ghanaian man who applied for asylum in 1995, but who was still awaiting an initial decision by IND.
Cardiff CAB reports acting for a Turkish man who applied for asylum in November 1998, and who received an initial decision from IND (a refusal) only on 2 May 2003; the client has now lodged an appeal to the IAA.
Bracknell CAB reports being approached in January 2003 by a Pakistani man who applied for asylum in 1998, but who was still awaiting an initial decision by IND.
We note that, according to oral evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee on 8 May 2003 by the Director-General of IND, of the current total of some 35,000 outstanding asylum applications, only “between 10,000 and 20,000” are work in progress, with the remaining 15-25,000 being backlog cases of varying age.
2. The quality of initial decisions by IND
CAB advisers report considerable dissatisfaction with the quality of some initial decisions by IND, especially in relation to applications made by certain nationals, such as Sudanese and Somalis. We note that, whilst the overall success rate of appeals determined by the IAA during the first quarter of 2003 was 17 per cent, the success rate of appeals by Sudanese nationals was 42 per cent, whilst the success rate of appeals by Tanzanian nationals was 35 per cent. And the success rate of appeals by Eritrean, Ethiopian, Iranian, Somali and Zimbabwean nationals was 30 per cent or more.
Furthermore, such figures almost certainly understate the true position, as an unreported number of asylum appeals are conceded by IND without ever being forwarded to the IAA. Reports from Citizens Advice Bureaux suggest that the number of appeals so conceded by IND is far from insignificant. In our view, the quarterly asylum statistics published by the Home Office should include figures for the number of appeals so conceded by IND.
In our view, an error rate of one in three is unacceptable, and reflects a number of factors, including: the inadequacy of some of IND’s information on refugee-producing countries; the long-term failure of Ministers and policy-making officials to recognise the value of, and thus to provide for, early legal representation (a problem compounded by the serious national shortage of good quality legal representatives); and a deeply-ingrained culture of disbelief amongst IND decision makers.
3. The timeliness of appeals to the IAA
I enclose a copy of our recent supplementary submission to the Home Affairs Committee’s current inquiry into Asylum Applications (our original submission to the inquiry covered NASS only).
As you will see from this supplementary submission, Citizens Advice Bureaux report dealing with many cases of inordinate delay on the part of IND in issuing the so-called appeal bundle – a prerequisite to the listing of the appeal by the IAA. Accordingly, we consider the Government’s reporting of performance against its current ‘2 + 4’ formula for the (final) resolution of asylum claims to be somewhat misleading, as this often lengthy waiting period (i.e. between the lodging of the appeal and the issuing of the appeal bundle by IND) is not included in either the ‘2’ or the ‘4’.
We are concerned that the Government’s new, six-month target for the final resolution of a (yet to be determined) proportion of asylum claims may prove to be no more transparent in this regard.
We would suggest that if targets are to be set – and we believe that realistic but meaningful targets can play a valuable part in the allocation of resources and the driving up of performance – then they should be set for all stages of the asylum process, not just for selected stages of the process. It goes without saying that all such targets should be rational and achievable.
In paragraph 3.3 of the enclosed supplementary submission, we refer in passing to cases of delay on the part of IND in the issuing of status documentation following a successful appeal to the IAA. For example, Dagenham CAB reports being approached in April 2003 by a Colombian woman whose appeal against a refusal of asylum had been allowed by an IAA adjudicator in October 2002, but who had not yet received the appropriate status documentation from IND. A CAB adviser contacted IND by telephone, but IND officials were unable to give any indication of when this (essential) status documentation might be issued to the client.
I hope that the above information proves helpful to your study.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Dunstan
Immigration Policy Officer
020 7833 7115
richard.dunstan@citizensadvice.org.uk
|
