When you consider that last year alone some half a million people lodged asylum claims in the European Union; that 3.5 million refugees from Afghanistan were seeking sanctuary in neighbouring countries; and that there were more than twelve million refugees worldwide, it tends to put our domestic situation into context.
That’s not to say we don’t have problems still to solve. For instance, although the backlog of unheard cases is at last being addressed and we are making nearly twice as many ‘decisions’ as there are ‘new applicants’, the backlog of appeals still remains stubbornly high.
Labour’s 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act went a long way to clear up the mess left us by the Tories. In direct response to Dover’s representations, the Act, for the first time ever, gave the government powers to disperse asylum seekers away from London and Kent and thus ease the pressures which were building up.
The Act also transferred the financial burden of supporting asylum seekers away from our overstretched local authorities and placed responsibility firmly with the Home Office where it belonged. There were many other measures in the Act. Some have proved successful, others have not. David Blunkett has had the courage to listen to advice, bite the bullet and roll out the radical list of reforms.
Dispersal has worked for places like Dover, but the government has acknowledged that the policy hasn’t been happily received at the ‘receiving end’ and some asylum seekers have been dumped in inappropriate parts of the country, void of suitable support and lacking in resource.
Dispersing asylum seekers to the four corners of the country has had other downsides. It has allowed people whose claims have been refused to avoid being deported by simply disappearing and joining the black economy.
To combat both these weaknesses the Home Secretary proposes to issue all asylum seekers entering the country with ‘smart ID cards’, while dispersing them from the Kent coast to accommodation centres in other parts of the country. But this new proposal should not be confused with the draconian measures proposed by Ann Widdecombe at the last election. These entailed locking up all asylum seekers and detaining them in glorified prisoner of war camps. The Tory policy would have been immoral, illegal and impossible to implement.
The government’s new centres will provide full board and lodge as well as supplying medical screening, legal advice and educational support in a safe and secure environment. This radical change of practice will do away with the necessity of forcing asylum seekers to use vouchers – which have been much criticised – speed up the decision-making process and ensure that failed claimants are immediately removed to their country of origin.
One area of asylum policy still needs addressing: the handling of unaccompanied minors is still causing problems in places like Dover. Herding together large numbers of young men into bed and breakfast accommodation without proper supervision, without any protection and leaving them with nothing much to do, is bad for the youngsters and bad for local communities.
Countries across the world have discovered that devising an asylum system which is fast, firm and fair is not as easy as it sounds. David Blunkett’s new approach, which weighs the promise of green card entry to skilled immigrants against the introduction of compulsory ID cards for asylum seekers; which balances the provision of safe and fully resourced accommodation centres against the obligation on asylum seekers to obey their strict regime rules; and which trades-off accelerated decisions for well founded claimants against swift repatriation of failed cases – is just about right. Time will tell.