MPs say there has been progress in clearing the backlog of asylum decisions
|
Quicker decisions on asylum seeker cases are needed to help cut costs, an influential committee of MPs said.
The public accounts committee said it took nine hours' work to process an average application and the Home Office target of two months was too long.
Up to 40% of cases were fast-tracked in the Netherlands but in the UK it was fewer than one in 10, the MPs argued.
However, chairman Edward Leigh said "significant progress" had been made in clearing a backlog of asylum decisions.
'�150m wasted'
The backlog had more than halved to 63,700 since 1999, although there was still "considerable scope" to speed up the process, he said.
But Tory MP Mr Leigh and his committee criticised what they said was a failure to deploy staff effectively.
They found that �150m was wasted by moving employees from clearing claim backlogs to removing asylum seekers.
"I recognise that time is needed for applicants to make their own preparations for the case but the two months that the Home Office generally allows to consider most applications is too long when it only takes nine hours of actual work to make a decision," said Mr Leigh.
"Speedier resolution of cases would reduce the costs of supporting asylum seekers and the number of cases that become more complex and difficult to deal with over time."
Appeals issue?
Mr Leigh told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The problem with this country is that people are hanging around too long, they put down roots, they acquire jobs, even families, and then it's virtually impossible, even cruel, to ask them to leave."
He said the Home Office had assured the MPs they can process claims more efficiently and humanely.
The committee called for targets to be set jointly with the courts so the appeals process can be speeded up thereby reducing the length of time taxpayers have to support applicants while their cases are determined.
There were also too many cases rejected only to be allowed at the appeal stage, the MPs said.
Immigration bosses needed to "examine why appeals are upheld and disseminate the lessons for improved decision-making to its caseworkers", the report argued.