Report finds Home Office Staff are working commendably, but the system is flawed, inefficient and unnecessarily complicated
New from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) last week is a hugely comprehensive report presenting the results of an audit of the UK's asylum intake, registration and screening procedures.
The report is 202 pages long and it can be downloaded here.
UNHCR's in-depth audit was carried out in 2021 with the agreement of the Home Office. UNHCR conducted a desk review of Home Office policies and operating procedures, and visited registration and screening locations for asylum seekers across the UK. Several dozen screening interviews were observed and the resultant cases audited. In addition, 50 randomly selected files of asylum claims were inspected. Interviews were also conducted with over 70 Home Office staff members of all ranks.
As the report notes: "Registration and screening are fundamental tools of international protection. They affect whether asylum-seekers are able to access a process for having their protection needs formally recognized, whether that process operates fairly and humanely, and whether those recognized as refugees can enjoy their rights thereafter, including the right to family reunification. For host countries, they are the foundation of an efficient asylum system."
The three-part report is based on the registration and screening process observed by UNHCR in practice during the audit and as it was described to by Home Office frontline and leadership staff. Part one of the report provides detailed, overarching cross-cutting observations on asylum screening procedures. Part two looks specifically at the response to small boat arrivals, and part three address issues specific to airports.
UNHCR's overall conclusion is that Home Office Staff are working commendably under very difficult circumstances, but are being hampered in the performance of their duties by a flawed, inefficient and unnecessarily complicated system. As a result, there is a need for significant change. Recommendations are made by UNHCR throughout the report which aim to help contribute to that change.
The lengthy report helpfully summarises its overall findings as follows:
"In summary, UNHCR observed Home Office staff working very hard under difficult conditions, driven by a commitment to support each other and to promote, as far as possible, the welfare of the asylum-seekers for whom they were responsible. They were expected to complete a wide range of important tasks – from security checks to accurate data entry to interviewing to making legally significant decisions – in a single appointment. This often proved impossible, due to lack of staff or training or the simple numbers of applicants. Administrative and information systems were underresourced and poorly designed, leading to hours of wasted or duplicated work. Different locations found different methods for squaring the circle, sometimes inventing creative solutions, but sometimes cutting corners in ways that made staff uncomfortable. Staff worked long hours without breaks, on weekends and on their days off. Although they were proud of what they were accomplishing, many described the situation as 'unsustainable' and were planning to leave.
"In spite of their dedication and hard work, moreover, UNHCR observed or was told about numerous risks to the welfare of asylum-seekers, including instances of trafficking and vulnerability being overlooked and teenage children and victims of torture and trafficking being detained. Registration and screening records were often incomplete, inaccurate, or unreliable, and laws and published policies were not complied with. Central aspects of the screening interview were routinely delegated to interpreters. There were no formal quality assurance systems in place, and managerial oversight was limited. Within and between screening locations, finally, significantly different practices were followed. For all of these reasons, there is a real risk that decisions based on information collected at screening will be flawed. In short, the current registration and screening systems expect staff to do too much, too quickly, and with inadequate training, facilities, guidance and oversight. As a result, much of their hard work is wasted, and the system frequently fails to achieve its goals."
Specifically with regard to how the Home Office elicits the basis of a claim, the report finds: "UNHCR is concerned that the way in which the basis of the asylum claim is asked at present creates real risks of eliciting an incomplete, distorted, or otherwise inaccurate account of material elements of an asylum claim. This may lead to claims being triaged incorrectly, creating significant inefficiencies, including delay and litigation. It may also lead to incorrect assessments of credibility."
In two locations inspected, UNHCR said Home Office staff described processes that, in UNHCR's view, created risks that individuals may be improperly screened out of the asylum process or otherwise persuaded by Home Office staff that they should not be making an asylum claim.
The vast majority of Home Office staff spoken to by UNHCR said they had had no training or very limited training on how to spot vulnerability or indicators of trafficking, and they received no specific safeguarding training.
The report states: "UNHCR is concerned that the screening interview alone is not at present capable of reliably eliciting vulnerabilities or other factors that might make a person unsuitable for removal to a third country and that therefore selecting individuals for removal to Rwanda on the basis using 'exactly the same process' will lead to errors, causing distress to individuals, delays, and well-founded litigation.
Processes for establishing an asylum claimant's immigration status — which is known by the Home Office as the 'contention' and which has become more significant after the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act — also drew concerns.
"[T]he contention was usually decided very quickly; in fact, … one of the key ways in which screening staff seek to accelerate the process is by making rapid decisions on the contention so that the appropriate legal paperwork can be generated remotely as soon as possible, and often before the interview has concluded. Many claimants volunteered that they had entered unlawfully, either clandestinely or by having entered as a visitor in order to claim asylum," the report notes.
UNHCR found the initial explanation stage of the screening interview was not in accordance with international best practice and was not well designed to elicit full and frank disclosure, and it risks the claimant misperceiving the explanatory readout as a mere formality and not important to listen to.
A lack of access to legal advice is briefly considered in the report and UNHCR says: "Although UNHCR is aware that access to legal advice is limited in part by factors outside the control of the Home Office, in our view this disregard for early access to legal advice is short-sighted. Accessible, reliable, and high-quality government funded legal aid and legal representation are instrumental in establishing fair and transparent asylum procedures. Provision of legal aid and legal representation can go a long way in strengthening the quality of decision-making and can contribute to the efficiency of the asylum process, because it can strengthen a claimant's understanding of and trust in the process, lower the number of appeals and subsequent applications, shorten adjudication timelines, and reduce late challenges to removal. This not only promotes more reliable access to protection by those who need it, but can also give those with less well-founded claims a more realistic view of their chances of success; where this information is provided by non-governmental actors, this has proven to increase the acceptance of the information provided."
UNHCR stresses that most of the shortcomings identified in the report should be taken as reflections on training, guidance and resources, and not on individual Home Office staff.
"The overwhelming majority of the staff UNHCR observed during the audit were respectful, professional, and patient in their interactions with claimants. Many displayed empathy and offered reassurance when discussing distressing matters with interviewees, and when vulnerabilities were recognized, these were explored with tact, individuals were signposted to relevant services, and appropriate referrals were made promptly," UNHCR added.