Asylum is not working. On this most polarised of issues, that is the one thing on which everyone can agree. Dangerous journeys across the Channel can be nobody’s idea of a safe, well-managed asylum system. That more than 100,000 people have their lives on hold, most waiting more than a year for a decision, is unfair. These delays cost the taxpayer millions in hotel accommodation that is unsuitable for those housed there and which can, as we have recently seen, become a focal point for far-right violence.
What to do about asylum divides people. We have a politics increasingly polarised between tough and soft solutions: control versus compassion. The government, 12 years into power, seems to relish an increasingly heated fight with lawyers and bishops. An argument that forces people to choose control or compassion sees a third of the public in each camp, but frustrates many people who think the government’s job is to combine the two.
Rishi Sunak made five New Year pledges, asking to be judged on delivery. Four of the five, such as reducing inflation and NHS waiting lists, were incremental: carefully designed so the government could meet the letter of what was promised. Asylum is different. A bold, absolute slogan – “stop the boats” – promised that a new bill would end the Channel crossings. The one commitment that everybody will remember is the one that will be impossible to keep. This Sunak pledge is more likely to feature in Nigel Farage’s election leaflets than those of Conservative candidates.
If passing another asylum bill could stop the boats, last year’s would have achieved this. The government has already said that the asylum claim of anybody who has come through Europe – which is almost everyone – can be deemed “inadmissible”. It is proposing a catch-22 system to try to abolish asylum in the UK: nobody can claim asylum if they come here illegally, but there is no legal route for almost anybody who is not Ukrainian. Yet, all of the sovereignty in the world does not allow the UK to send people elsewhere without negotiating agreements to do so.
Nor can the government detain everybody. The chief inspector of prisons has pointed out that the UK has only 2,500 immigration detention places. It cannot conjure up a 10- or 20-fold increase within a year or two. There is a returns deal with Albania – but it would be unconscionable to have one with Afghanistan, Eritrea or Syria. And the UK has no post-Brexit returns deals with France or Belgium.
Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to Theresa May, is a key influence on Suella Braverman’s tough line on asylum. However, his recent response to the Liz Truss relaunch – warning that the Conservatives risked leaving behind “the reality-based community” – also applies to asylum. He notes that the pledge to detain and deport everyone is unachievable. His proposal is to leave the European convention on human rights – a proposal that divides Conservative MPs. Yet scrapping all of the UK’s international obligations does not address the practical issue of having nowhere to send people. Timothy says the Rwanda scheme makes sense as a deterrent only if everyone knows they will go there. But that is another way of saying it cannot work, since Rwanda’s capacity is much closer to 200 than to 20,000. Whether it ever happens or not, it is largely an expensive distraction.
So politicians keep chasing headlines and seeking scapegoats but have failed to come up with a proper plan for an orderly, workable and humane system. The home secretary’s case for Rwanda is “there is no alternative”. A British Future paper published today, Control and compassion: a new plan for an effective and fair UK asylum system, attempts to be more constructive.
This is not a single magic bullet but a series of practical changes. The government’s plan to clear the backlog is essential but insufficient. As well as hiring a bigger taskforce to do the job, an overhaul of the asylum process is also needed. People from countries where 90% of claims are accepted still wait a year from an initial hearing to a decision.
If Britain is to take its fair share of refugees, there needs to be a legal route to get here. The UK should introduce a new humanitarian visa, which people can apply for at embassies and consulates away from the Channel coast. Parliament could decide the number of visas annually, starting at a level around the 40,000 claims that the UK receives in a typical year. Targeting this pilot at people from the countries with the highest asylum acceptance rates could make a significant contribution to diverting dangerous crossings. It could disrupt the smuggling business model in a way that policing alone and threats about Rwanda cannot.
Proposing a safe route to the UK is our best shot at breaking the deadlock with France. The two governments are trying to work on stopping the crossings. If this is only about security, it is a whack-a-mole strategy. Those apprehended will try again. The UK will not get anywhere by proposing that France, which is receiving more than 100,000 asylum claims a year itself, should also take back everybody who tries to come here. A serious negotiation about safe routes and safe returns – about who can come to the UK and who France can take back – could bring order to the Channel while offering a fair hearing for asylum seekers.
The flames engulfing a police van in Knowsley, Merseyside, last weekend show why we need more light and less heat in how we talk and act on asylum. Emotive language and impossible promises can lead to unmet expectations, frustration and anger. Constructive plans that can be put into practice in the real world, however, could depolarise the debate – and also make things better for people who need our help. Most of the public want something done to reduce Channel crossings. They also want Britain to show fairness and kindness to people in need. Rather than asking us to choose between them, a competent government would combine both control and compassion in its approach to asylum.
• Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
