Detailed research records, alternatives, costs and provisional assessments. These records preserve different scopes and historical reviews; they are not an additional ranked action plan.
Evidence → choices → outcomes
Asylum claims decided quickly and soundly, and local services funded in step with the population they serve — whatever level of migration Parliament chooses.
Worker protection matters alongside migration totals. The 2023 social-care immigration inspection identified weaknesses in sponsor licensing and compliance capacity, alongside exploitation and abuse. It is evidence of a delivery risk, not a current prevalence estimate.
Evidence in the domain SWOT →What would it take to improve this?
The outcome we want: Asylum claims decided quickly and soundly, and local services funded in step with the population they serve — whatever level of migration Parliament chooses.
The main constraint: Asylum decisions, appeals and accommodation sit with different bodies — the Home Office, the tribunals and councils — so speeding up one stage moves pressure to the next unless caseworkers, judges, legal advice and move-on housing are planned together; local funding formulas lag population change by design.
Constraint type: workforce, coordination, evidence.
What is funded now, and the changes assessed against it — the current baseline and the alternatives, before the position today and the actions.
Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.
Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-onDelivery risk: Amber
Range if completed: 13.0–19.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Alternatives already on record: 24 options listed under the points in the position today (17 without an action record), and 4 earlier options under other options compared. They have not been scored in the review.
Which quadrant a point sits in is our analytical judgement, not a statistical category. Each point says whether it is a measured fact, our synthesis or a risk.
The initial-decision queue has shrunk: 40,168 people were awaiting a first asylum decision at the end of June 2026, against 160,919 at the end of 2022, after 115,872 initial decisions in the year to June 2026.
Measured factConfidence: High· end of 2022 to end of June 2026· United Kingdom
Source: Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 (Asylum summary tables (Asy_00a and related))
Options assessed against this point: Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on (Amber delivery RAG)
Funding: Spending Review 2025 gives £200 million of asylum transformation funding to end hotel use this Parliament 'by clearing the asylum backlog, increasing appeals capacity and continuing to return those with no right to be here', and expects asylum costs to fall by at least £1 billion a year by 2028-29 compared with 2024-25.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedClear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Stable casework teams, legal and interpreting access and case progression keep initial decisions flowing while quality is audited.
Who: Home Office with HMCTS · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Keep caseworkers in post
Retention measures (bonuses since 2023) keep experienced decision-makers, who take 12-18 months to reach full productivity.
Who: Home Office · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Established
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Make one decision on asylum and humanitarian protection
The Immigration and Asylum Bill would replace separate assessments with a single decision, cutting handling time.
Who: Home Office; Parliament · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
Source: Home Office, New independent appeals body to speed up removals (IIAA to hear appeals from late 2027, phased; single appeal route; single decision on asylum and humanitarian protection; FtT sitting days +19%)
Hotel use has fallen: 16,021 people in asylum hotels at the end of June 2026, against 45,753 at the end of 2022.
Measured factConfidence: High· end of 2022 to end of June 2026· United Kingdom
Source: Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 (Asylum summary tables (asylum support by accommodation type))
Options assessed against this point: Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on (Amber delivery RAG)
Target: The government has committed to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, moving towards large sites including former military sites.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedClear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Faster, sound decisions and appeals move people out of supported accommodation, reducing demand for hotels.
Who: Home Office; MoJ/HMCTS; councils · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: HM Treasury, Spending Review 2025 (HTML) (Chapter 2 'Strong foundations', 'Asylum and border security' (£200m transformation funding; end hotel use this Parliament; costs down at least £1bn a year by 2028-29); Chapter 3 justice paragraph (increased capacity every year to process asylum appeals); Home Office settlement section)
Move asylum accommodation out of hotels
Procure dispersed homes across all council areas and keep hotels only as contingency.
Who: Home Office and contractors; councils; MHCLG · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Established
Source: National Audit Office, The Home Office's asylum accommodation contracts (HC 874) (Report page; summary paras 4 and 8 (£4.5bn to £15.3bn))
Use former military sites as large accommodation
Large sites (Bicester, Barnham, Linton-on-Ouse, ~3,750 places; Crowborough to 2030; Wethersfield beyond 2027) replace hotel places.
Who: Home Office; MoD · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
Source: Home Office, Thirteen asylum hotels exited and returned to local communities ('less than 160 now remain'; former MOD sites (Bicester, Barnham, Linton-on-Ouse, ~3,750 places); Crowborough to 2030, Wethersfield beyond 2027)
Renegotiate asylum accommodation contracts and use clawback
Profit-share and clawback clauses and renegotiated contracts lower the cost of the estate while hotels are exited.
Who: Home Office with the Government Commercial Agency · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Announced proposal
Source: HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes for August 2026 (CP 1668): government response to PAC 'An analysis of the asylum system' (Accessible PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6abfbecac9bd185c481ec96c/E03677598_-_CP_1668_Treasury_Minutes_Web_Accessible.pdf, recs 1-6: paras 1.1-1.4 (end-to-end accountability framework, Dec 2026); 2.3 (risks incl. pressure moving between parts of system); 3.3-3.5 (system indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency); 4.1-4.6 (capacity gaps); 5.1-5.5 (long-term accommodation strategy); 6.3 (renegotiating asylum contracts by end of year); 6.8-6.10 (contract review; profit share, clawback; exit hotels by end of Parliament))
The Home Office spent about £4.2 billion on asylum support, resettlement and accommodation in 2025-26, a short-term cost paid while claims are decided. Small-boat arrivals were about 5% of the number arriving in 2025 but account for much of public attention to this cost.
Measured factConfidence: High· 2025-26· United Kingdom
Source: Home Office, Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2025 to 2026 (Expenditure note)
NAO found no firm shared outcomes across the asylum system and insufficient interoperable data. Faster processing can shift backlogs elsewhere or reduce decision quality; progress must cover the whole case, including appeals and accommodation.
Measured factConfidence: High· NAO, December 2025· United Kingdom
Source: National Audit Office, An analysis of the asylum system (Concluding remarks)
Worker protection matters alongside migration totals. The 2023 social-care immigration inspection identified weaknesses in sponsor licensing and compliance capacity, alongside exploitation and abuse. It is evidence of a delivery risk, not a current prevalence estimate.
Risk, not a certaintyConfidence: High· Inspection, August–November 2023· United Kingdom
Source: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Inspection of immigration and the social care sector (Conclusions)
Decision quality has fallen as output rose: only 52% of decisions met the Home Office’s own quality standards in 2023/24, down from 76% two years before.
Measured factConfidence: Moderate· 2021/22 and 2023/24· United Kingdom
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How productive are Home Office caseworkers?”, paragraph 3)
Options assessed against this point: Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on (Amber delivery RAG)
Policy: The Home Office accepted all three ICIBI recommendations on asylum casework (25 Jun 2026): it has appointed a senior quality lead, introduced a refreshed quality framework, is building feedback from appeals into decision-making, and is testing a service standard for initial decisions.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedClear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Quality-audit decisions alongside throughput and track appeals outcomes by cohort, so speed does not lower quality.
Who: Home Office · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Implement the ICIBI quality recommendations
Senior quality lead, refreshed quality framework, appeals feedback loops and better recruitment and training raise the share of decisions meeting standards.
Who: Home Office (Asylum Group) · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Established
Source: Home Office, Response to the ICIBI report: an inspection of asylum casework (June to December 2025) (Recommendations 1-3, all accepted (SCS Quality lead; refreshed quality framework; project to test a service standard for initial decisions; appeals feedback loops))
Reinstate a service standard for initial decisions
A published time standard, tested alongside quality measures, restores a clear expectation for straightforward cases.
Who: Home Office · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Pilot
Source: Home Office, Response to the ICIBI report: an inspection of asylum casework (June to December 2025) (Recommendations 1-3, all accepted (SCS Quality lead; refreshed quality framework; project to test a service standard for initial decisions; appeals feedback loops))
Provide early legal advice to claimants
Earlier legal advice gets evidence in up front, avoiding late claims and poor decisions.
Who: Home Office; Ministry of Justice (legal aid) · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
Source: Home Office, Restoring Order and Control: a statement on the government's asylum and returns policy (CP 1418) ('Moving out of hotels'; 'Creating a new appeals body' (early legal advice); summary list items 'Ending hotel accommodation' and 'New appeals body')
Publish asylum system indicators including quality
Regular publication of quality alongside decisions and appeals lets Parliament see whether speed costs accuracy.
Who: Home Office (Asylum System Board) · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Announced proposal
Source: HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes for August 2026 (CP 1668): government response to PAC 'An analysis of the asylum system' (Accessible PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6abfbecac9bd185c481ec96c/E03677598_-_CP_1668_Treasury_Minutes_Web_Accessible.pdf, recs 1-6: paras 1.1-1.4 (end-to-end accountability framework, Dec 2026); 2.3 (risks incl. pressure moving between parts of system); 3.3-3.5 (system indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency); 4.1-4.6 (capacity gaps); 5.1-5.5 (long-term accommodation strategy); 6.3 (renegotiating asylum contracts by end of year); 6.8-6.10 (contract review; profit share, clawback; exit hotels by end of Parliament))
The queue has moved to appeals: around 80,000 asylum appeals were pending at the First-tier Tribunal at the end of 2025, a record.
Measured factConfidence: Moderate· End of 2025· United Kingdom
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Key points; “How large is the UK’s backlog of asylum appeals?”)
Options assessed against this point: Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on (Amber delivery RAG)
Policy: Spending Review 2025 promises 'increased capacity every year to process asylum appeals'. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 requires the First-tier Tribunal, where reasonably practicable, to decide appeals by people in asylum accommodation within 24 weeks. The Immigration and Asylum Bill would create an Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, hearing appeals from late 2027.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedClear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Plan appeals, legal aid and move-on capacity with casework so faster initial refusals do not just lengthen the appeal queue.
Who: Home Office; MoJ; HMCTS · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Apply the 24-week statutory timeframe for supported appeals
The tribunal must decide in-scope appeals within 24 weeks, cutting time in supported accommodation.
Who: HMCTS; judiciary; Home Office · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Established
Source: legislation.gov.uk, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, section 49 (New s.86A NIAA 2002: 24-week timeframe for appeals by people in asylum accommodation; in force 12.8.2026 by S.I. 2026/766)
Increase First-tier Tribunal sitting days
More judge sitting days in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber raise appeal disposals.
Who: Ministry of Justice; HMCTS; judiciary · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Funded programme
Source: Home Office, New independent appeals body to speed up removals (IIAA to hear appeals from late 2027, phased; single appeal route; single decision on asylum and humanitarian protection; FtT sitting days +19%)
Create the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority
A new body with professionally trained adjudicators and a single appeal route takes new cases while the tribunal clears the stock.
Who: Home Office; Parliament · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
Source: Home Office, New independent appeals body to speed up removals (IIAA to hear appeals from late 2027, phased; single appeal route; single decision on asylum and humanitarian protection; FtT sitting days +19%)
Judging asylum casework on sound decisions and end-to-end time, and checking local funding against observed demand, would tackle delay and local pressure without assuming any particular migration total is the goal.
Depends on: Appeals, legal advice and move-on housing are funded with casework, and funding comparisons show the councils that would lose as well as gain.
Our synthesisConfidence: Moderate
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Key points); National Audit Office, Lessons learned: a planning and spending framework that enables long-term value for money (HC 234, Session 2024-25) (Summary paragraph 11)
Policy: In its Treasury Minute response to the Public Accounts Committee (2 Oct 2026), the government agreed to set out by December 2026 an end-to-end accountability framework for the asylum system, a system-wide data plan with indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency, and an assessment of capacity gaps across decisions, appeals, accommodation, returns and local authority impacts. Separately, the 2026-27 local government settlement is the first multi-year settlement in a decade, with funding moved to new needs-based shares over three years.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedMatch local service funding to changing population needs
Publish an annual comparison of observed demand (schools, GPs, housing) against allocations in fast-changing areas, showing councils that lose as well as gain.
Who: MHCLG with DfE, DHSC and ONS · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Site-editorial action
Source: National Audit Office, Lessons learned: a planning and spending framework that enables long-term value for money (HC 234, Session 2024-25) (Summary paragraph 11)
Clear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Judge casework on sound decisions and end-to-end time rather than initial-decision volumes.
Who: Home Office; MoJ · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Publish end-to-end asylum indicators and capacity gaps
Government-agreed indicators and a shared capacity-gap evidence base let decisions, appeals and accommodation be planned together.
Who: Home Office (Asylum System Board) with MoJ, MHCLG and HM Treasury · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Announced proposal
Source: HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes for August 2026 (CP 1668): government response to PAC 'An analysis of the asylum system' (Accessible PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6abfbecac9bd185c481ec96c/E03677598_-_CP_1668_Treasury_Minutes_Web_Accessible.pdf, recs 1-6: paras 1.1-1.4 (end-to-end accountability framework, Dec 2026); 2.3 (risks incl. pressure moving between parts of system); 3.3-3.5 (system indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency); 4.1-4.6 (capacity gaps); 5.1-5.5 (long-term accommodation strategy); 6.3 (renegotiating asylum contracts by end of year); 6.8-6.10 (contract review; profit share, clawback; exit hotels by end of Parliament))
Keep the multi-year needs-based settlement
Three-year allocations using ONS population estimates and projections, phased in over three years with 95% income protection, move funding towards assessed need.
Who: MHCLG · Evidence: Modelled scenario · Status: Established
Source: MHCLG, Provisional local government finance settlement 2026 to 2027 (Section 1.3 (first multi-year Settlement in a decade, 2026-27 to 2028-29); 95% income protection paragraphs)
Backlogs can move rather than clear: appeals have built up as initial decisions rose, and ending hotel use depends on accommodation contracts whose estimated 10-year cost rose from £4.5bn to £15.3bn.
Risk, not a certaintyConfidence: Moderate
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How large is the UK’s backlog of asylum appeals?”); National Audit Office, The Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts (HC 874) (Paragraphs 4 and 8)
Options assessed against this point: Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on (Amber delivery RAG)
Policy: The government told the Public Accounts Committee (2 Oct 2026) that it is renegotiating the asylum accommodation contracts with the Government Commercial Agency by the end of 2026, is using profit-share and clawback clauses and considering break clauses, will write by December 2026 with a long-term accommodation strategy under different demand scenarios, and will set out delivery risks including 'pressure moving between parts of the system'. Exiting hotels by the end of this Parliament remains the stated aim.
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
ShortlistedClear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality
Plan appeals and move-on capacity alongside casework so backlogs do not just move stage.
Who: Home Office; MoJ; MHCLG · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Appeals backlog section (80,000; legal aid fees raised Dec 2025); 'How productive are Home Office caseworkers?' (52% vs 76%; attrition 22% end-2025; retention bonuses; end of customer service standard 2019))
Renegotiate the asylum accommodation contracts
Renegotiated terms, profit-share reviews and clawback reduce the 10-year contract cost.
Who: Home Office; Government Commercial Agency · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Announced proposal
Source: HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes for August 2026 (CP 1668): government response to PAC 'An analysis of the asylum system' (Accessible PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6abfbecac9bd185c481ec96c/E03677598_-_CP_1668_Treasury_Minutes_Web_Accessible.pdf, recs 1-6: paras 1.1-1.4 (end-to-end accountability framework, Dec 2026); 2.3 (risks incl. pressure moving between parts of system); 3.3-3.5 (system indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency); 4.1-4.6 (capacity gaps); 5.1-5.5 (long-term accommodation strategy); 6.3 (renegotiating asylum contracts by end of year); 6.8-6.10 (contract review; profit share, clawback; exit hotels by end of Parliament))
Publish a long-term accommodation strategy under demand scenarios
A strategy showing the accommodation mix under different demand scenarios, developed with councils, reduces reliance on emergency hotel procurement.
Who: Home Office with councils and MHCLG · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Announced proposal
Source: HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes for August 2026 (CP 1668): government response to PAC 'An analysis of the asylum system' (Accessible PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6abfbecac9bd185c481ec96c/E03677598_-_CP_1668_Treasury_Minutes_Web_Accessible.pdf, recs 1-6: paras 1.1-1.4 (end-to-end accountability framework, Dec 2026); 2.3 (risks incl. pressure moving between parts of system); 3.3-3.5 (system indicators covering outcomes, quality and efficiency); 4.1-4.6 (capacity gaps); 5.1-5.5 (long-term accommodation strategy); 6.3 (renegotiating asylum contracts by end of year); 6.8-6.10 (contract review; profit share, clawback; exit hotels by end of Parliament))
Apply the 24-week statutory timeframe for supported appeals
Time limit on supported appeals stops the backlog building at the appeals stage for people in accommodation.
Who: HMCTS; judiciary · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Established
Source: legislation.gov.uk, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, section 49 (New s.86A NIAA 2002: 24-week timeframe for appeals by people in asylum accommodation; in force 12.8.2026 by S.I. 2026/766)
Our shortlist for this page. Research quality, policy status, cost and funding are judged separately; none of these is government policy unless its status says so.Our shortlist. None is government policy unless its status says so.
Action 1A14Policy status: funded programme
Stable, trained casework teams with interpreters and legal advice make sound first decisions; appeals and move-on accommodation are planned alongside, so cases are resolved end to end rather than moved to the next queue.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
A new scope of this action (A14v2): Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on
Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending
Range if completed: 13.0–19.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
£200m in total, 2026–27 to 2027–28, price basis not stated by the source; 1 further cost line, some not yet costed
Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmedWhy it is shortlisted here: Waiting and hotel costs are the system’s most visible failures; the initial queue is falling, so the test now is decision quality and the appeals that follow.
People wait months or years for asylum decisions, often in costly contingency accommodation; faster initial decisions have coincided with falling decision quality and a record build-up of appeals.
People claiming asylum in the UK and awaiting an initial decision or appeal, and the councils and communities that accommodate them. Territory: UK. Asylum is reserved to Westminster and decided UK-wide; appeals are heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) across the UK. Accommodation and move-on involve councils in all four nations.
A funded programme already exists. Spending Review 2025 gives £200 million of transformation funding (£150m in 2026–27, £50m in 2027–28) to speed up the asylum system and end hotel use this Parliament, with more appeals capacity each year, and says asylum costs will fall by at least £1bn a year by 2028–29 compared with 2024–25 — a government expectation, not an independent estimate. Since the change of Prime Minister, the Burnham government has restated closing every asylum hotel this Parliament and set a 24-week First-tier Tribunal target for appeals by people on asylum support and non-detained foreign national offenders, from 12 August 2026 (Home Office, 14 August 2026). The proposal is to judge throughput and decision quality together and plan appeals and move-on capacity with them.
Cost completeness: Published programme envelope; project costs still needed. Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed.
First step: Publish the stock and flow of cases by stage, the cases awaiting evidence and the avoidable delays, with quality-audit results. (owner: Home Office with HM Courts & Tribunals Service)
Depends on: Tribunal capacity; Housing for people granted protection (councils)
This card replaces the option “Faster, accurate asylum decisions and appeals” (funded: Spending Review 2025: £200m transformation funding; commitment to end asylum hotel use this Parliament.). Its evidence: Observed, not evaluated: as initial decisions rose, the number awaiting a first decision fell from 160,919 (end of 2022) to 40,168. Much of the pressure has moved to appeals, which are not in these figures. The 2025 Spending Review ties ending hotel use to clearing the backlog and increasing appeals capacity. Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 · HM Treasury, Spending Review 2025 (June 2025)
Source published 22 April 2026 (Migration Observatory); 11 June 2025 (Spending Review); 7 May 2025 (NAO); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: New Home Office quality-audit results; Quarterly immigration statistics; Tribunal statistics on asylum appeals.
Action 2A15Policy status: site-editorial action
Compare observed demand for schools, GP registration, housing and support with funding in fast-changing areas, publish the comparison each year, and adjust through the formula or a specific grant with gainers and losers shown.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
Not assessed in the 6 October review; this action stays in the topic plan with its own evidence.
Not yet costed
Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identifiedWhy it is shortlisted here: Net migration (171,000 in the year to December 2025, provisional) is one total; what residents feel is local demand on schools, GPs and housing, which formulas track with a lag.
Councils, schools and health services are funded by formulas built on population estimates and projections, which can lag rapid local change; local pressure is also often attributed to migration without evidence either way.
Residents of English council areas with rapid population change, including areas receiving asylum seekers and new migrants. Territory: England. Local government finance is devolved; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland set their own formulas. Not assessed.
UK Facts proposal. The 2026–27 settlement is the first multi-year settlement in a decade (to 2028–29). Its new needs formula uses ONS mid-year estimates for the base year and the 2022-based subnational population projections for later years, with damping: funding moves to new shares in thirds, and councils losing most keep about 95% of 2025–26 income. The Home Office pays an Asylum Dispersal Grant (£1,200 per asylum seeker accommodated on 30 March 2026, then £100 a month for each additional occupied bed space). An annual test of allocations against observed demand is a UK Facts proposal.
Cost completeness: Not yet costed. Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified.
First step: Compare demand and existing funding in fast-growing and shrinking areas, involving local services and residents. (owner: MHCLG with councils and the ONS)
Depends on: ONS population estimates and projections; The multi-year settlement’s annual confirmations
Source published 27 October 2024 (NAO); 20 November 2025, 17 December 2025 and 9 February 2026 (MHCLG); 30 March 2026 (Asylum Dispersal Grant); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: The 2027–28 settlement confirmation; New ONS population projections; Changes to asylum dispersal funding.
One shared record per option — the same one the national plan reads. Delivery risk, gate and list membership are separate judgements.
Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.
A14v2Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending
A new scope of action A14 (A14v2); A14 itself is unchanged and nothing is inherited from it.
Provisional single-reviewer desk assessment, 6 October 2026.
An initial asylum decision can transfer pressure to appeals, accommodation or homelessness services. A shorter first queue is not a whole-system outcome.
AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)2 of 3 — Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm
Reviewer’s reason: Problem scale judged from the linked domain evidence; not a population estimate of those helped.
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery
Reviewer’s reason: Improve a defined hand-off so an initial decision does not simply transfer the queue to tribunals or homelessness services. This is a provisional marginal-change judgement, to confirm against commissioned delivery.
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Reviewer’s reason: Site distinguishes first-decision backlog from support caseload and flags quality trade-offs.
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: no sufficiently supported magnitude for this exact change.
Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation
Reviewer’s reason: Rushed decisions, hidden appeals backlog and demand transferred to private rentals.
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: the proposed increment has not been costed and matched to an approved affordable allocation in this review. Existing programme envelopes are not that allocation.
Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource
Reviewer’s reason: Specify the process change and unit costs; no banked hotel saving without alternative accommodation.
Distribution (Fa)2 of 3 — Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards
Reviewer’s reason: Distribution assessed against the target group and the burdens described here: Rushed decisions, hidden appeals backlog and demand transferred to private rentals.
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Reviewer’s reason: Timing judgement concerns the first meaningful outcome in: Whole-case time, quality upheld, suitable accommodation days and post-decision homelessness. It does not imply all long-term benefits arrive then.
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Reviewer’s reason: Audit an end-to-end cohort and test one bottleneck with tribunal/council participation. Owner: Home Office, tribunal administration, councils and accommodation commissioners.
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Full incremental costing and allocation remain unverified. Specify the process change and unit costs; no banked hotel saving without alternative accommodation.
Why it is not Green yet
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending scope, cost and funding appraisal”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Lifetime costing: Not established.
Still to cost: Full incremental costing and allocation remain unverified. Specify the process change and unit costs; no banked hotel saving without alternative accommodation.
Funding status: not established in review.
Proposed owner: Home Office, tribunal administration, councils and accommodation commissioners. (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
Not defined in the review.
Depends on: Specify the process change and unit costs; no banked hotel saving without alternative accommodation.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Risks and residual harms: Rushed decisions, hidden appeals backlog and demand transferred to private rentals.
Metric: Whole-case time, quality upheld, suitable accommodation days and post-decision homelessness.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Measures already on the domain page
A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.
Outcome: Whole-case time, quality upheld, suitable accommodation days and post-decision homelessness.
Site distinguishes first-decision backlog from support caseload and flags quality trade-offs.
SWOT points it addresses
Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer desk assessment, 6 October 2026.
Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Carried from the earlier domain review (C record): must be calibrated jointly with the G/W/E/NG/NW/NE records before any combined comparison.
Decision route: Audit an end-to-end cohort and test one bottleneck with tribunal/council participation.
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.
The leading option set out as a decision someone could take: who decides, who benefits, the best evidence, cost and funding, and the main trade-off. The full research record is one click away.
Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04
The thread: issue, evidence, action
An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A14 · effects E-A14-WAIT, E-A14-APPEALS, E-A14-MOVEON · costs C-A14-CASEWORK, C-SR25-ASYLUM-REFORM
1.The change, in plain words
Decide asylum claims soundly first time, and plan appeals and move-on housing with them — tested on one cohort before it is rolled out
2.The decision requested
3.Who it is for, and what changes beyond today
Source: Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 (Asylum summary tables (Asy_00a; accommodation type)); University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (Key points; “How large is the UK’s backlog of asylum appeals?”; “How many asylum appeals are submitted and decided in the courts?”; “How productive are Home Office caseworkers?”); MHCLG, Statutory homelessness in England: financial year 2024-25 (Section 10.4)
4.How it would work
Do: Give claimants legal advice before the main interview, let their representative answer a draft refusal, audit decisions, reserve tribunal time for the cohort’s appeals and tell councils at the date of decision Changing: fewer weak refusals reaching the tribunal, faster final outcomes and earlier housing plans for people granted protection
Time from claim to final outcome (including any appeal)
Hypothesis to testEffect record E-A14-WAIT
The fall in the first-decision queue is observed, but no evaluation links a particular operating model to shorter end-to-end times.
Appeals lodged and decisions overturned on appeal
Hypothesis to testEffect record E-A14-APPEALS
Today faster, lower-quality decisions appear to feed the appeals backlog; whether front-loaded advice and review reduce overturns in the UK is untested. In Switzerland court remittals fell over the first two years, without a control group.
Homelessness among people granted protection at move-on
Hypothesis to testEffect record E-A14-MOVEON
Most households leaving asylum accommodation reach councils already homeless; earlier notification may allow prevention work. A cost moved to councils is not a saving.
Hotel nights and cost per resolved case
Hypothesis to test
Savings count only when contracts and occupancy costs actually fall, net of replacement accommodation and council costs.
Share of decisions meeting quality standards
Hypothesis to test
A leading indicator the pilot would publish; audit standards must be the same in the pilot and comparison cohorts.
Outcomes are kept separate and never added into one impact figure.
5.Best evidence
Where: Key points; sections on appeals, caseworker productivity and spending. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
The Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts (HC 874)
Where: Summary paragraphs 4 and 8. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Statutory homelessness in England: financial year 2024-25
Where: Section 10.4 (flows for households leaving asylum accommodation). Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Evaluation PERU: Rechtsschutz und Entscheidqualität, Schlussbericht
Where: Zusammenfassung, pp. VII–X. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
6.Alternatives, counter-evidence and who loses
Source: Swiss Center of Expertise in Human Rights (SKMR), for the State Secretariat for Migration, Evaluation PERU: Rechtsschutz und Entscheidqualität, Schlussbericht (Zusammenfassung p. VIII); University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How large is the UK’s backlog of asylum appeals?”)
| Option | Who is reached | Evidence | Likely outcome and timing | Cost and funding | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The proposalEnd-to-end cohort pilot: early legal advice, draft-decision step, audit, reserved tribunal time and early council notice (this brief) | Claimants in one intake cohort and the councils they move to | UK statistics show the problem; Swiss evaluation suggests feasibility, without a control group | Quality data in months; appeal and move-on outcomes after about a year | Not costed; Spending Review transformation money is a route; nothing allocated | Slower, dearer first decisions; draws scarce lawyers and judges |
| Current policyCurrent policy: more caseworkers and productivity, more appeals capacity, a planned new appeals body, ending hotels | All claimants | First-decision queue fell sharply; quality fell and appeals reached a record | Initial backlog keeps falling; appeals pressure persists until the tribunal catches up | £200m transformation funding in 2026–27 and 2027–28 | Moves the queue from decisions to appeals and from hotels to councils |
| AlternativeLengthen the move-on period from 28 days to match councils’ 56-day homelessness prevention window | People granted protection leaving asylum support | Not evaluated here; most households currently reach councils already homeless | Quick to implement by amending regulations | Extra support and accommodation nights for the Home Office; not costed | Longer stays in asylum accommodation, including hotels, while it lasts |
| AlternativeSpeed first: individual caseworker targets, simplified procedures and prioritised nationalities | Claimants in simplified or prioritised groups | Used from 2023; caseworker productivity recovered but audited quality fell | Fast effect on the initial queue | Within existing budgets | Risk of more wrong decisions and appeals |
The options compared, including current policy
The proposal
End-to-end cohort pilot: early legal advice, draft-decision step, audit, reserved tribunal time and early council notice (this brief)
Current policy
Current policy: more caseworkers and productivity, more appeals capacity, a planned new appeals body, ending hotels
Alternative
Lengthen the move-on period from 28 days to match councils’ 56-day homelessness prevention window
Alternative
Speed first: individual caseworker targets, simplified procedures and prioritised nationalities
7.What other countries or the devolved nations show
Country lesson · Switzerland (six federal asylum regions), From 1 March 2019; evaluated over the first two years (to early 2021)
Evidence: Observational analysisPartial match: some conditions differ
Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: Swiss Center of Expertise in Human Rights (SKMR), for the State Secretariat for Migration, Evaluation PERU: Rechtsschutz und Entscheidqualität, Schlussbericht (Zusammenfassung, pp. VII–X; chapter II.5–6); Egger, Dreher & Partner AG and Ecoplan AG, for the State Secretariat for Migration, Evaluation PERU: Teilprojekt Prozessqualität, Schlussbericht (Kurzfassung, pp. 1–3; section 3.1.5). Reviewed 2026-10-04.
8.What delivery needs first
9.What it would cost
How the cost is built up: Cost per resolved case = (legal advice + caseworker time including draft-decision step and audit + interpreters + tribunal sitting days + accommodation nights to final outcome + move-on support) ÷ cases reaching a final outcome; compared with the standard process. Hotel savings count only when contract costs fall, net of replacement accommodation and council costs.
| Component | Unit and quantity | Unit cost or amount | Type, price year, period | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caseworkers, interpreters, legal aid, tribunal judges and move-on support, costed togetherEnd-to-end resolution of asylum cases | per year; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet costed (ledger C-A14-CASEWORK) | recurring; price year not stated; Each year | Not yet establishedRead from the ledger record, which has no amount. Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How much does the UK spend on its asylum system?”) |
| Spending Review 2025 asylum transformation funding (programme total, a possible route)UK asylum system transformation, including ending hotel use | programme; quantity to be set from need and capacity | £200m in total, 2026–27 to 2027–28, price basis not stated by the source (ledger C-SR25-ASYLUM-REFORM) | recurring; price year not stated; 2026–27 to 2027–28 | Historic costTransformation money, not the running cost of casework or tribunals. Source: HM Treasury, Spending Review 2025 (Paragraph 2.19; Table 1.2) |
| Legal advice before the substantive interviewEach claimant in the cohort | per claim; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period | Not yet established |
| Extra caseworker time for the draft-decision step and quality auditIntended refusals and audited decisions in the cohort | per decision; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period | Not yet established |
| Reserved tribunal sitting daysAppeals from the cohort | per sitting day; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period | Not yet established |
| Move-on support and council prevention work from the date of decisionHouseholds granted protection in the cohort | per household; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period | Not yet established |
| Independent evaluationPilot and comparison cohorts | per evaluation; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | one-off revenue; price year not stated; Pilot plus follow-up to final outcomes | Not yet established |
Caseworkers, interpreters, legal aid, tribunal judges and move-on support, costed together
End-to-end resolution of asylum cases
Not yet costed (ledger C-A14-CASEWORK)
recurring; price year not stated; Each year; Not yet established
Read from the ledger record, which has no amount.
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How much does the UK spend on its asylum system?”)
Spending Review 2025 asylum transformation funding (programme total, a possible route)
UK asylum system transformation, including ending hotel use
£200m in total, 2026–27 to 2027–28, price basis not stated by the source (ledger C-SR25-ASYLUM-REFORM)
recurring; price year not stated; 2026–27 to 2027–28; Historic cost
Transformation money, not the running cost of casework or tribunals.
Source: HM Treasury, Spending Review 2025 (Paragraph 2.19; Table 1.2)
Legal advice before the substantive interview
Each claimant in the cohort
Not yet established per claim
recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period; Not yet established
Extra caseworker time for the draft-decision step and quality audit
Intended refusals and audited decisions in the cohort
Not yet established per decision
recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period; Not yet established
Reserved tribunal sitting days
Appeals from the cohort
Not yet established per sitting day
recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period; Not yet established
Move-on support and council prevention work from the date of decision
Households granted protection in the cohort
Not yet established per household
recurring; price year not stated; Pilot period; Not yet established
Independent evaluation
Pilot and comparison cohorts
Not yet established per evaluation
one-off revenue; price year not stated; Pilot plus follow-up to final outcomes; Not yet established
10.Who pays, and what is missing
11.First milestone and time to a useful result
Publish the cohort protocol and a baseline: cases by stage, time to final outcome, quality-audit results, appeal overturns and move-on outcomes for the comparison cohort. (Owner: Home Office with HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Legal Aid Agency. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Time to first useful result: Quality-audit results and first-decision times within months; appeal outcomes need about a year, given current tribunal waits.
What could delay it: Legal-aid providers have capacity to advise the cohort early The tribunal can reserve listing time while the backlog is at a record Linked Home Office and tribunal data exist per claim Changes to the appeals system (the planned new body) do not alter the comparison mid-pilot
12.How we would know
What is not yet known, and how to find out
Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: Evidence editor (James Harris) · Next check: Home Office immigration system statistics, year ending September 2026 (26 November 2026) or the first trigger: A change to asylum appeals, accommodation contracts or move-on policy.
First, the prerequisite
Publish cases by stage, avoidable delays and quality-audit results
Owner: Home Office with HM Courts & Tribunals Service
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, the decision
Fund tribunal, legal-aid and move-on capacity alongside casework
Owner: Home Office, Ministry of Justice and MHCLG
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, delivery
Publish an annual demand-and-funding comparison for fast-changing areas
Owner: MHCLG with DfE, DHSC and the ONS
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Finally, the measured outcome
Shorter time to a final outcome without more overturned decisions; fewer people in hotels
Owner: Home Office and tribunal statistics
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Cost, committed funding and the remaining gap for the same scope and years. A programme envelope is not an award to a project; a proposal is not committed money. No total is shown because these costs are on different bases or periods and cannot be added.
Cost and funding ledger
Spending Review 2025: reform of the asylum system (transformation funding)
A14 · recurring spending · published programme envelope
Caseworkers, interpreters, legal aid, tribunal judges and move-on support, costed together
A14 · recurring spending · not costed
Annual demand-and-funding comparison for fast-changing areas
A15 · administration · not costed
Any adjustment to allocations for fast-changing areas
A15 · recurring spending · not costed
“Not yet costed” means no defensible cost has been found — not that the action is free. Lifetime benefits, benefit-cost ratios and forecast savings are never shown here as money available to spend.
| Action | Outcome and area | Effect | Compared with | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality | Time to a final asylum outcome Migration and asylum | Direction plausible; size not established | — | plausible spillover; limited confidence; United KingdomThe fall in the initial backlog is observed, but no evaluation links a particular operating model to shorter end-to-end times. |
| Clear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality | Appeals backlog Migration and asylum · harm | Size not established | — | plausible spillover; moderate confidence; United KingdomThe appeals backlog reached a record as the initial backlog fell; the causal share of decision quality is not established. |
| Clear asylum cases without sacrificing decision quality | Homelessness demand on councils after protection is granted Housing · harm | Size not established | — | plausible spillover; limited confidence; United KingdomA cost shifted to councils is not a whole-system saving. |
| Match local service funding to changing population needs | Access to local services in fast-changing areas Public service delivery | Direction plausible; size not established | — | plausible spillover; limited confidence; EnglandLosers elsewhere within a fixed settlement; no evaluation of the effect on services. |
The outcome measures to watch. A baseline is where we start, not a target; where there is no official target we say so.
people · United Kingdom
Target: none — no published target for the initial-decision queue.
Source: Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 (Asylum summary tables). Next release: quarterly immigration statistics (check the release calendar).
people · United Kingdom
Official target: close every asylum hotel by the end of this Parliament: a Spending Review 2025 commitment, restated by the Burnham government on 14 August 2026.
Source: Home Office, Immigration system statistics: asylum summary tables, year ending June 2026 (Asylum summary tables). Next release: quarterly immigration statistics (check the release calendar).
appeals · United Kingdom
Target: none — no published target; the Spending Review promises more appeals capacity each year.
Source: University of Oxford Migration Observatory, The UK’s asylum backlog (“How large is the UK’s backlog of asylum appeals?”). Next release: quarterly tribunal statistics (check the release calendar).
What each option would be judged on, and the latest value of the measures already on this page. A measure moving is not proof that an option caused it.
Track asylum cases through appeals and safe move-on
Judged on: Whole-case time, quality upheld, suitable accommodation days and post-decision homelessness.
Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.
“Full text checked” means we read the report itself; “relevant passages” means the sections behind each figure; “summary or abstract only” means we could not read the full study, so no number from it is published here without another source.
Options from earlier work on this page that are not on the shortlist. They remain valid choices; their evidence is shown as before.
| Option | Resources | Time | Evidence | Outcome to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tighter rules on work and study visas | Mainly rule changes and Home Office compliance work; sectors that relied on overseas recruitment need domestic workforce plans. | Visa grants respond within months; ONS arrival estimates show the effect about a year later, after provisional revisions. | limited | Long-term arrivals by reason (MIG-02) and vacancy rates in affected sectors. |
| Move asylum accommodation out of hotels | Housing supply in lower-cost areas, council support services, contract management. | Hotel numbers have already fallen from 45,753 (end of 2022) to 16,021; ending use depends on the backlog and housing supply. | limited | Total accommodation cost and placements by council. |
| Returns agreements and border enforcement | Detention capacity, flights, caseworkers and other states’ cooperation. | Pilots can be scaled within months if partners agree; effects on crossings are hard to separate from weather, smuggler tactics and conditions abroad. | not evaluated | Small-boat arrivals and deaths at sea. |
| Domestic workforce plans for sectors that recruit abroad | Training places, employer investment, and pay in publicly funded sectors — much adult social care is commissioned and paid for by councils. | Years, not months: training pipelines take years to produce qualified staff. | limited | Care hours delivered and unmet need. |
Plan reviewed 2026-10-04. How we judge evidence.