Enver Solomon is Chief Exective of the Refugee Council.
In his first major interview since becoming Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak told the Times on Saturday that in the previous 48 hours he had spent more time on small boats and the asylum crisis than anything other than working with the Chancellor on the cost of living crisis.
This suggests that the he, who has a reputation for taking a forensic look at policy challenges to really understand and get to grips with them, is serious about genuinely trying to resolve what is a complex issue. So what should he do?
The Prime Minister said in his interview he believes it is important to be honest with the public about the economic challenge the country faces. This is equally true for the small boats and asylum challenges and should be the first key step Sunak and his Government take.
They must level with the public: it’s no good the Home Secretary continuously saying that the small boats will be stopped as it is simply unrealistic.
Nearly three years ago, Priti Patel said she would ensure the Channel would be made unviable for any person seeking asylum to cross. Suella Braverman has promised the same, saying she will end all crossings.
But the numbers continue to rise. Over promising and under delivering will only harm the Conservative party’s standing with the electorate. Much better to be honest, as the Prime Minister says he wants to be, and say it is a complex issue, there are no simple solutions, but that the Government is working on realistic measures that will gradually make a difference over time.
It’s not easy for ministers to do this, but it would be far better than endlessly under-delivering, only to face a complete loss of public trust and the electoral consequences.
First and foremost, the Government has to address the asylum backlog. The most recent statistics show there are over 100,000 people waiting an initial decision. Of those tens of thousands have been waiting over a year. Increasing caseworkers and their productivity will make a difference but it won’t result in any actual outcome for over a year at best. It takes 12 months from recruitment for a caseworker to be skilled at the job and turnover is already over 40 per cent.
What should be done is to rapidly create a dedicated case clearance unit by designating staff from other parts of the Home Office. When the Ukraine crisis happened and there was a back log in visa applications, additional staff were moved on to it to ensure it was addressed. The same happened with the EU Settlement Scheme.
It can and should be done with people that have been waiting for over 12 months for a first decision prioritised. At the end of June there were more than 40,500; the latest data when it comes out at the end of November will show it has rise further.
At the same the woeful lack of investment in the asylum decision making system must be reversed not just now but going forwards too. At the end of June there were 614 staff dealing with 166,000 work-in-progress cases. A crude analysis shows that this is an incredible 270 cases per person.
It is only this year that a case flow IT system has been put in place. Decision-makers have been using spreadsheets. In a report published in November last year David Neal, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, found “inefficient” and “ineffective” workflow processes and an over-reliance on cumbersome Excel files were contributing to a failure to keep on top of decision-making.
The lack of access to legal advice and wider information and support also creates inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. It’s been reported that the current advice service provided by Migrant Help on behalf of the Home Office has been rated as inadequate.
Many areas of the country have little or no legal aid provision for people seeking asylum which means they are more likely to be given poor legal advice, be refused and then exercise their right to appeal. Good legal advice first time around would reduce appeals and create greater efficiencies.
It’s just not possible to operate an efficient and effective asylum system on the cheap. Like any public service, under-investment leads to poor outcomes and ultimately a crisis. The reality is that the system has been neglected and under-funded for years.
Ministers also need to accept that they have to contingency plan. Government officials told them at the end of last year to expect up to 60,000 people coming across the channel in 2022. At the same time the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported: “contingency planning should ensure there is an effective response to fluctuating numbers and rapid mobilisation of resources whenever necessary”.
This didn’t happen. Manston became overwhelmed and overcrowded as a result. This was despite the fact that it is well known in the Home Office that, like last year, the highest monthly numbers crossing the channel would be around October or November.
A well-resourced, efficient, and effectively-run asylum system would create more order and far less chaos and cost to the Treasury. Starving it of the resources it needs is entirely counterproductive.
So what needs to be done to address the crossings themselves? Most important is that there has to be meaningful diplomacy conducted with the French. A war of words or political grandstanding is simply not going to achieve anything. And proper diplomatic engagement must recognise that there has to be some give and take.
Two decades ago, the Government put in the hard yards to achieve a deal with the French that led to the closure of the Sangette refugee camp in northern France, from whence high numbers were coming to the UK. There are lessons to be learned from that episode which like now, for the government at the time, had come to symbolise a loss of order and control over the UK’s borders.
Nick Pearce, the special advisor to the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has some important lessons for this Government about finding solutions. He says:
“Do a deal with the French government; bring in the UNHCR to register migrants; offer those seeking refugee protection a proper process for applying in France or access to places on the UK’s refugee resettlement programme; and give those with family members in the UK a work visa'”
A recent report published by the Legatum Institute jointly authored by its CEO, Baroness Phlippa Stroud, myself, and Professor Alexander Betts from Oxford University, makes the case for a similar type of approach and sets out the options in more detail calling for new a national refugee policy.
There are no easy fixes to the current situation. But with a good dose of political maturity, requiring courage, honesty and leadership, there certainly are workable solutions that would make a real difference.
Enver Solomon is Chief Exective of the Refugee Council.
In his first major interview since becoming Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak told the Times on Saturday that in the previous 48 hours he had spent more time on small boats and the asylum crisis than anything other than working with the Chancellor on the cost of living crisis.
This suggests that the he, who has a reputation for taking a forensic look at policy challenges to really understand and get to grips with them, is serious about genuinely trying to resolve what is a complex issue. So what should he do?
The Prime Minister said in his interview he believes it is important to be honest with the public about the economic challenge the country faces. This is equally true for the small boats and asylum challenges and should be the first key step Sunak and his Government take.
They must level with the public: it’s no good the Home Secretary continuously saying that the small boats will be stopped as it is simply unrealistic.
Nearly three years ago, Priti Patel said she would ensure the Channel would be made unviable for any person seeking asylum to cross. Suella Braverman has promised the same, saying she will end all crossings.
But the numbers continue to rise. Over promising and under delivering will only harm the Conservative party’s standing with the electorate. Much better to be honest, as the Prime Minister says he wants to be, and say it is a complex issue, there are no simple solutions, but that the Government is working on realistic measures that will gradually make a difference over time.
It’s not easy for ministers to do this, but it would be far better than endlessly under-delivering, only to face a complete loss of public trust and the electoral consequences.
First and foremost, the Government has to address the asylum backlog. The most recent statistics show there are over 100,000 people waiting an initial decision. Of those tens of thousands have been waiting over a year. Increasing caseworkers and their productivity will make a difference but it won’t result in any actual outcome for over a year at best. It takes 12 months from recruitment for a caseworker to be skilled at the job and turnover is already over 40 per cent.
What should be done is to rapidly create a dedicated case clearance unit by designating staff from other parts of the Home Office. When the Ukraine crisis happened and there was a back log in visa applications, additional staff were moved on to it to ensure it was addressed. The same happened with the EU Settlement Scheme.
It can and should be done with people that have been waiting for over 12 months for a first decision prioritised. At the end of June there were more than 40,500; the latest data when it comes out at the end of November will show it has rise further.
At the same the woeful lack of investment in the asylum decision making system must be reversed not just now but going forwards too. At the end of June there were 614 staff dealing with 166,000 work-in-progress cases. A crude analysis shows that this is an incredible 270 cases per person.
It is only this year that a case flow IT system has been put in place. Decision-makers have been using spreadsheets. In a report published in November last year David Neal, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, found “inefficient” and “ineffective” workflow processes and an over-reliance on cumbersome Excel files were contributing to a failure to keep on top of decision-making.
The lack of access to legal advice and wider information and support also creates inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. It’s been reported that the current advice service provided by Migrant Help on behalf of the Home Office has been rated as inadequate.
Many areas of the country have little or no legal aid provision for people seeking asylum which means they are more likely to be given poor legal advice, be refused and then exercise their right to appeal. Good legal advice first time around would reduce appeals and create greater efficiencies.
It’s just not possible to operate an efficient and effective asylum system on the cheap. Like any public service, under-investment leads to poor outcomes and ultimately a crisis. The reality is that the system has been neglected and under-funded for years.
Ministers also need to accept that they have to contingency plan. Government officials told them at the end of last year to expect up to 60,000 people coming across the channel in 2022. At the same time the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported: “contingency planning should ensure there is an effective response to fluctuating numbers and rapid mobilisation of resources whenever necessary”.
This didn’t happen. Manston became overwhelmed and overcrowded as a result. This was despite the fact that it is well known in the Home Office that, like last year, the highest monthly numbers crossing the channel would be around October or November.
A well-resourced, efficient, and effectively-run asylum system would create more order and far less chaos and cost to the Treasury. Starving it of the resources it needs is entirely counterproductive.
So what needs to be done to address the crossings themselves? Most important is that there has to be meaningful diplomacy conducted with the French. A war of words or political grandstanding is simply not going to achieve anything. And proper diplomatic engagement must recognise that there has to be some give and take.
Two decades ago, the Government put in the hard yards to achieve a deal with the French that led to the closure of the Sangette refugee camp in northern France, from whence high numbers were coming to the UK. There are lessons to be learned from that episode which like now, for the government at the time, had come to symbolise a loss of order and control over the UK’s borders.
Nick Pearce, the special advisor to the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has some important lessons for this Government about finding solutions. He says:
“Do a deal with the French government; bring in the UNHCR to register migrants; offer those seeking refugee protection a proper process for applying in France or access to places on the UK’s refugee resettlement programme; and give those with family members in the UK a work visa'”
A recent report published by the Legatum Institute jointly authored by its CEO, Baroness Phlippa Stroud, myself, and Professor Alexander Betts from Oxford University, makes the case for a similar type of approach and sets out the options in more detail calling for new a national refugee policy.
There are no easy fixes to the current situation. But with a good dose of political maturity, requiring courage, honesty and leadership, there certainly are workable solutions that would make a real difference.