“Ministers have described the asylum system as ‘broken’ and have pointed to the ‘New Plan for Immigration’ as the remedy,” wrote chief inspector David Neal. “But whatever changes this brings, there will still be a need to ensure that the Home Office is properly resourced, equipped and organised to make timely and good quality asylum decisions.”
He said the government had “failed to keep on top of the volume of claims”, adding that some asylum officials had been “openly disbelieving claimants in interviews and not responding appropriately to sensitive disclosures of personal information”.
The number of asylum seekers waiting for an initial decision reached an all-time high in March, at 52,935.
The average wait time has increased every year since 2011, with most adults now having to wait 15 months for a decision. For unaccompanied children, the delays are even longer, with an average wait time of almost 18 months.
In 2019, home secretary Priti Patel scrapped Home Office targets to process most asylum claims within six months, saying it would prioritise claims from children and the most vulnerable instead. However, the inspector found no evidence of any case being prioritised.
No evidence for Patel’s ‘exploitation’ claims
This week, Patel said that appeals to asylum decisions are “a complete merry-go-round and it has been exploited” by immigration lawyers.
But Neal’s report found that the Home Office loses almost half of appeals – suggesting that officials are rejecting valid applications. The standard of initial decisions are “inadequate”, the inspector added, and fail to meet targets for quality assurance.
“If you get somebody’s claim right the first time around then they don't have to keep reapplying in most cases,” said Alasdair Mackenzie, a barrister who specialises in asylum appeals.
He added that the report “entirely undermines the secretary’s position that the way to deal with the problems in the system is more legislation. What is needed is actually better administration of the system that you've got.”
Home Office officials told the inspector that the training they have received did not equip them with the skills to conduct interviews or make decisions.