Seventy-Sixth Report - The Asylum Transformation Programme

The focus on streamlining decision-making may inadvertently lead to more flawed decisions, or the withdrawal of genuine asylum claims. The Home Office is now collecting more detailed information through a questionnaire for people from six countries where most claims result in asylum being granted, in the hope that it will be able to make decisions quicker and without lengthy interviews. The Home Office worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to reform its asylum processes, but we share the UNHCR’s concern that the poor design of the new questionnaire may affect caseworkers’ ability to make the correct decision on a claim. We also note the significant increase in ‘administrative’ decisions, where claims are withdrawn either by the claimant, or directly by the Home Office if someone has not complied with their requirements. We are concerned about how the Home Office will assure itself that it is not incorrectly withdrawing genuine asylum claims, should the significant number of withdrawals persist. Recommendation 2: Alongside its Treasury Minute response the Home Office should write to the Committee setting out: • The number of administrative decisions made each month since the introduction of its streamlined asylum process; 6 The Asylum Transformation Programme • How its internal quality assurance arrangements have changed to reflect the introduction of the streamlined asylum process, what these arrangements have shown about quality of decisions made under the process, and how learning from this has been used; and • What further evaluation of the streamlined asylum process is planned, in particular to ensure that the Home Office makes the right asylum decisions.

The Home Office does not have a credible plan for ending the use of hotels to accommodate people waiting for a decision and the unacceptable cost this creates. The Home Office spent £2.3 billion on hotels in 2022–23 to accommodate people waiting for their asylum decision. In April 2023, there were 48,000 people waiting for a decision while living in hotels. To reduce its reliance on hotels the Home Office has sought ‘dispersal accommodation’ in local areas. But while it initially hoped to find 500 new beds every week, it found, on average, just 48 new beds a week in the year to April 2023. The Home Office has struggled to procure larger scale accommodation and has now told us it is “maximising the use of hotels” by increasing the number of people who share hotel rooms, though it could not set out how much money this would save. We were surprised to hear that the Home Office is paying for in excess of 5,000 empty hotel beds as a ‘buffer’ in case its initial accommodation sites, such as Manston, cannot cope with the number of people arriving. The Home Office has told us that to plan effectively it needs to estimate future demands on the UK asylum system, and that it uses several ‘scenarios’ to model how many people will arrive in the UK. However, it told us that it does not have a date for when it expects to stop using hotels under these scenarios. Recommendation 3: The Home Office should, as part of its Treasury Minute response, set out how and by when it intends to reduce its use of hotels, and when it intends to stop using hotels altogether, under its different planning scenarios about the number of people applying for asylum.

The Home Office is failing to engage meaningfully with local authorities on decisions that affect their residents and already strained public services. We have previously reported that the Home Office has not adequately engaged with local stakeholders on asylum accommodation. This continues to be the case. The Home Office acknowledged that its letters about maximising the use of hotels were to inform local authorities of its decision, not to consult them. It has also sent contradictory letters to councils about how much accommodation it intends to source in local areas, and it seemed to have no practical solutions to progress its ‘place-based-approach’. Worryingly, the lack of coordination between the Home Office and local government means the Home Office is competing with councils and their partners to secure accommodation, driving up prices and exacerbating the homelessness challenges that local authorities already face. Recommendation 4: The Home Office should, as part of its Treasury Minute response, set out how its ‘place-based approach’ will give local authorities a meaningful say on the use of accommodation in their areas, and what specific actions it will take to improve its relationships with local authorities. The Asylum Transformation Programme 7

The Home Office does not have adequate safeguards to protect against the risks of vulnerable people having to share accommodation with strangers. The Home Office has written to councils informing them that the number of people staying in hotels will double. It plans to achieve this by making people share rooms. The Home Office said an assessment would be carried out before people are moved into shared rooms, but it struggled to explain what that assessment would consider other than language and nationality. There was no clarity on whether the Home Office planned to consider the trauma that people claiming asylum might have faced and, while the Home Office said it would review health records when we asked about mental health, we are concerned that it does not have a robust process in place to make sure sharing arrangements will be safe. If the Home Office implements room sharing without proper safeguards there could be serious consequences. Recommendation 5: The Home Office should, as part of its Treasury Minute response, set out in detail the measures it will take to identify any vulnerabilities individuals waiting for a decision have, and how it will manage the risks to the individual that these may present.

The Home Office failed to convince us that it understands the full implications of its programme on the wider asylum system, affecting the ability of others to plan. The current business case for the asylum and protection transformation programme is incomplete and unrealistic. The Home Office acknowledged that it has not looked broadly enough at the impact of rapidly clearing its asylum backlog, and that its business case ignores the challenges and costs that bodies such as Immigration Enforcement and the courts will need to overcome to avoid creating new backlogs. The Home Office will not be updating its business case until early 2024, at least six months later than it had told the NAO and after the date it expects to have made decisions on all of the older, ‘legacy’ cases. This delay means other organisations in the wider asylum system cannot make informed plans and makes it more likely that new backlogs will appear elsewhere in the asylum system. Recommendation 6: The Home Office should publish its updated business case so the intentions and impacts of the Programme are clear and transparent to Parliament, the public and other organisations. In its Treasury Minute response, the Home Office should set a date by which this business case will be published. 8 The Asylum Transformation Programme 1 Working through the backlog of asylum decisions

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Home Office about its asylum and protection transformation programme.1

In the year to April 2023, 25% of caseworkers left their role.15 The Home Office told us the proportion of caseworkers leaving had reduced since the C&AG’s report (published in June 2023) and that some caseworkers leave the role for internal promotions, but it acknowledged that this level of turnover is “nowhere near where it needs to be, which is at 7% or 8%”.16 The Home Office also said that it recruits caseworkers through a rolling campaign, so that it will be able to keep the number of caseworkers at 2,500.17

The Home Office told us that it has increased the number of decisions caseworkers make by focussing on “bottlenecks” in the system. It said that asylum claims requiring decisions had not been reaching caseworkers quickly enough and, when they did, the claims were not immediately ready to make decisions on. The Home Office said that removing these bottlenecks had been a “big part” of speeding up decisions.18

The Home Office also told us about its streamlined asylum process, which is used for people applying for asylum who are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan.19 It said that this process includes people seeking asylum completing a questionnaire before their interview, meaning interviews can be shorter and caseworkers can make more decisions.20 The Home Office’s guidance on the streamlined asylum process says that, where possible, a decision will be taken without an interview.21 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been supporting the Home Office on some of its work to transform the asylum system.22

However the UNHCR, as well as the Public Law Project and Dr Jo Wilding from the Migration Law Clinic, have raised concerns about the streamlined asylum process questionnaire.23 Though the Home Office told us that it had worked with the UNHCR 10 Home Office, Immigration system statistics: Asylum and Resettlement - Asylum seekers in receipt of support: Asy_D09, 24 August 2023 11 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 ; PM Statement on illegal migration: 13 December 2022, 13 December 202 12 Qq 17, 20, 34 13 Hansard, Illegal Migration Update, 5 September 2023 14 Q 25 15 C&AG’s Report, para 3.6 16 Qq 22, 37 17 Q 36 18 Q 12 19 Q 15, Home Office, Streamlined asylum processing guidance, 16 August 2023 20 Q 12; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 21 Home Office, Streamlined asylum processing guidance, 16 August 2023 22 TAP0004; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR’s Guide to Asylum Reform in the United Kingdom, 23 February 2021 23 TAP0001; TAP0004; TAP0005 10 The Asylum Transformation Programme to improve the questionnaire, the written evidence we have received indicates that the questionnaires are poorly designed, lack clear instructions and are only available in English.24 Written evidence suggested that some of these weaknesses, along with IT system issues, may mean the Home Office is unable to achieve the expected decision- making increases from the new questionnaires.25

When deciding on an asylum claim, the Home Office can make what it calls ‘administrative decisions’ if a person claiming asylum withdraws their claim or if the Home Office decides a claim is ‘implicitly withdrawn’. The Home Office may withdraw a claim if, for example, a person seeking asylum leaves the UK before the Home Office decides their claim, fails to attend an asylum interview, or fails to complete an asylum questionnaire when asked to do so.26 The poor design, and the requirement to complete the questionnaire in English, may mean that some people are less likely to return the questionnaire, leading the Home Office to decide that an asylum claim has been implicitly withdrawn.27 In April 2023, 72% of asylum decisions made by the Home Office were administrative decisions.28 The Home Office told us that the increase in administrative decisions coincided with it focusing on claims for people from Albania, and that at the time of our evidence session it was making more substantive decisions.29

As a result of the changes it has made, the Home Office has increased the number of asylum decisions it makes from an average of 1,310 each week in April 2023, to 1,700 in the first week of July 2023.30 To meet its commitment to clear the legacy backlog by the end of 2023, it will need to increase this and make an average of nearly 2,600 decisions every week from the start of July 2023 to the end of the year.31 We have made this calculation using the number of legacy cases remaining at 30 June 2023 (67,870 decisions) divided by the number of weeks from then to 31 December 2023 (26.3). The Home Office’s analysis suggested that even it if it clears the backlog of legacy claims by the end of 2023, there will still be another backlog of around 84,000 asylum claims that were made after 28 June 2022.32 How addressing the backlog will impact on the wider asylum system

While the Programme aims to increase the number of asylum decisions that the Home Office makes, the Home Office acknowledged that it has not looked broadly enough at benefits and costs beyond the asylum and protection team of increasing decisions.33 For example, its business case does not account for economic benefits, such as someone receiving a decision and being able to move into work.34 The Home Office acknowledged that there will be an impact on HM Courts & Tribunals Service, who will need to manage more appeals against asylum decisions and Immigration Enforcement, who may need to 24 Qq 119–120 25 TAP0004; TAP0005 26 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 27 TAP0005; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 28 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 29 Q 57 30 Q 43; C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 31 Home Office, Immigration system statistics: Asylum and Resettlement - Summary tables: Asy_10a, 24 August 2023 32 C&AG’s Report, para 3.14 33 Q 128 34 Qq 129–130; C&AG’s Report, para 9 The Asylum Transformation Programme 11 detain and remove the increased number of people who are refused asylum. The Home Office also listed the Department for Work & Pensions and the Department for Education as bodies that would be affected by the Programme.35

The Home Office told us it would include a wider range of costs and benefits in the next iteration of its business case, which it plans to produce early in 2024.36 It had previously told the NAO it would update the business case in Summer 2023.37 We note that the updated business case is now not expected until after the date by which the Home Office expects to have cleared the legacy backlog. When we questioned the Home Office about whether the Programme business case is realistic, the Home Office replied that it still expects there to be a “significant benefit to the taxpayer” from the Programme, and that it would “iterate from the previous version” and “sharpen” its analysis.38 35 Qq 128, 132 36 Q 170 37 C&AG’s Report, para 2.5 38 Qq 172–173 12 The Asylum Transformation Programme 2 Finding accommodation for people who are waiting for a decision Sourcing alternative accommodation to hotels

In 2022–23, the Home Office spent £2.3 billion on hotels to accommodate people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim and in April 2023, there were 48,000 people waiting for a decision in hotels.39 In his statement to the House on 13 December 2022, the Prime Minister said that the Home Office would end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers.40 An early version of the business case for the Programme expected the Home Office to find 500 new beds in local communities every week and stop using hotels by December 2023.41 The Home Office later revised this to 350 beds a week but, in the year to the end of April 2023, it found on average just 48 new beds a week.42 When we took evidence in July 2023 the Home Office told us that it was then finding more than 48 beds a week but was not close to 350 a week on a regular basis.43

When we asked the Home Office why it was so far from achieving its accommodation targets, it told us that there is a “huge amount of pressure” for the type of accommodation it is trying to source.44 In written evidence, the Local Government Association (LGA) told us that providers sourcing accommodation for the Home Office compete with councils seeking accommodation for domestic families and people who have resettled in the UK or been granted asylum, which increases prices and distorts local markets.45 The Home Office acknowledged that it was “in similar parts of the market” to councils.46 The LGA told us that homelessness, low social housing stock and an unaffordable private rented sector are “creating a housing crisis”, and that this will make the government’s plans to house people waiting for an asylum decision across all local authorities challenging. The Home Office is planning to implement a ‘place-based approach’ and said it was seeking “to get into a position where [it has] a much closer and ongoing dialogue” with providers and local areas.47 It told us that it would have “meaningful discussions” with every local authority where there is concern about the changes that it is implementing.48

The Home Office also told us that it pays for around 5,000 empty hotel rooms as a ‘buffer’ in case it needs more space than exists at its initial holding facilities such as Manston, where many asylum seekers are first taken when they arrive in the UK.49 This buffer is on top of what it terms ‘ringfenced hotels’ which it can move people to “quickly as an overflow from Manston before they come into the more permanent estate”, although during our evidence session the Home Office did not set out how many beds it reserved in ringfenced hotels.50 The Home Office said that increasing dispersal 39 C&AG’s Report, paras 4, 1.8 40 PM Statement on illegal migration: 13 December 2022, 13 December 2022 41 C&AG’s Report, para 3.19 42 C&AG’s Report, figure 9 43 Q 59 44 Q 59 45 TAP0006 46 Q 134 47 Q 110 48 Q 94 49 Qq 98–101 50 Qq 98–101 The Asylum Transformation Programme 13 accommodation through the transformation programme was a big part of its plan to increase accommodation supply and reduce hotel use, but that it was also looking to use a number of larger sites as alternative accommodation.51 The Home Office has faced several challenges in securing such accommodation. This has included legal challenges against the use of former military sites and difficulties finding ports that will hold barges.52 Hotel use, safeguarding, and Home Office stakeholder engagement

The Home Office said it is very difficult to estimate how many people will claim asylum because of uncertain migration patterns, but that it has low, medium and high scenarios that it uses for planning purposes.53 When we asked the Home Office when it planned to stop using hotels for people waiting for their asylum decision, it said there were “too many variables” and that it “deliberately” did not have a date for this.54

The Home Office explained that, as a way to limit the number of hotels it is using, it will accommodate more people in each hotel by increasing the amount of room-sharing.55 It told us that it had so far increased the number of beds available in hotels by a number “in the high hundreds” through room sharing, and that its providers were working with hotels so that more room sharing could be implemented.56 The Home Office told us that it was confident this could provide “several thousand” more beds.57 However, it said that it pays its providers by bed rather than per room and was very vague about how much money the increased room-sharing would save, and promised to come back to us to share the detail.58 The Home Office did write to us on 18 August 2023, but the letter provided little clarity as to how room sharing would result in savings and did not state how much money that the Home Office expects to save.59

In our 2020 report Asylum accommodation and support transformation programme, we found that the Home Office had not adequately engaged with local stakeholders on asylum accommodation.60 In response to that report, the Home Office told us that it had taken steps to improve its engagement work.61

The Home Office told us that it is working with the Local Government Association and individual councils and was “talking about all the big issues that arise, whether that is housing capacity, health, safeguarding and so on”.62 Specifically on room-sharing, the Home Office said it was “talking that through nationally and individually with councils”.63 We pointed out that councils had already received letters telling them how many more people would need to be accommodated in hotels. The Home Office acknowledged that its communications had not been about whether the increase in room-sharing will happen, 51 Q 61 52 House of Commons Library, Asylum accommodation: hotels, vessels and large-scale sites, CBP 9831, 7 July 2023 53 Q 63 54 Qq 89–90 55 Q 91 56 Qq 66–68 57 Q 66 58 Q 115 59 Correspondence from the Home Office to PAC dated 18 August 2023 60 Committee of Public Accounts, Asylum accommodation and support transformation programme, Twenty-Fifth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 683, 20 November 2020 61 HM Treasury, Government responses to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Twenty-Fifth to the Twenty- Ninth reports from Session 2019–21, CP 376, February 2021 62 Qq 81, 143 63 Qq 85–86 14 The Asylum Transformation Programme but about how it will be done and how risks will be managed.64 The Home Office could not answer a specific question asking why Hull City Council received a letter from the Home Office saying that it was halting further increases in the asylum seeking population due to unsustainable pressures in the area, only to receive another letter 10 days later saying it would double the number of people in hotels in the city.65 In a letter the Home Office sent to us on 18 August 2023, it said that dispersed accommodation procurement in Hull was paused, except for any accommodation already in the process of being procured. It said that room sharing in hotels was treated separately from dispersed accommodation.66

When we asked the Home Office how it was ensuring the safety of the people it is pairing up to share a hotel room, it was unable to clearly articulate its plans and said that there “might be people for whom it is not appropriate if they share”.67 It said it was looking at the records it holds, at the experience of people who were already living in its estate, and at nationality and language.68 It provided no further detail when we asked specifically whether it would consider mental health.69 We asked if anybody was speaking to the asylum seekers or completing an assessment, as would be the case for a social services placement, and the Home Office said that its providers were “explaining” that they would be moving people into shared rooms.70

The Home Office said it would come back to us with further details on its processes for deciding who will share rooms but its letter of 18 August added little detail about how the Home Office would ensure people are kept safe, and it largely repeated what was said in our evidence session.71 The letter did add that room sharing was for people of the same sex, and that the Home Office encourages room sharing with family and friends.72 64 Q 87 65 Q 145 66 Correspondence from the Home Office to PAC dated 18 August 2023 67 Q 77 68 Q 71 69 Q 72 70 Qq 74–75 71 Q 85, Correspondence from the Home Office to PAC dated 18 August 2023 72 Correspondence from the Home Office to PAC dated 18 August 2023 The Asylum Transformation Programme 15