Talk of a ‘white list’ takes us back to the 90s – and it didn’t work then either

The policy was pursued by Blair’s government – and dropped because it was unlawful, writes John Rentoul

We should treat with scepticism the idea that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is about to announce the policy (Reuters)

We have been here before, so we know it doesn’t work. The very term “white list” is unfortunate in the context of immigration and asylum. But that wasn’t the only problem with the policy pursued by Tony Blair’s government.

There were two other problems with the idea of a list of countries designated “safe”, from which asylum applications would be presumed to be unfounded. One was that it didn’t work. The other was that it was unlawful.

So we should treat with scepticism the idea that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is about to announce the policy (though a source close to the home secretary said they did not recognise the report and a so-called “white list” policy was not in development). She got the headline she wanted, with The Times declaring: “Suella Braverman wants Albanian migrants who cross Channel in small boats on fast track to deportation.” But the wording of the actual report was more tentative: the home secretary is “looking to” resurrect a list of designated “safe” countries, it said.

We have been here before, too – a home secretary desperately casting around for ideas to make her look tough, which result in headlines but not actual policies. Wave machines and deportation to Rwanda are two examples from Priti Patel’s time, although the Rwanda policy did get as far as a plane standing at an airport.

The history of the “white list” explains why it is unlikely to happen this time. It started in 2003, when Blair, having restored some order to the asylum system in his first term in government, became alarmed at new waves of applications from his liberal interventionist war zones: Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

A list of “safe” countries was drawn up in the Home Office under David Blunkett. It didn’t include any of those three countries, but was designed to speed up the processing of asylum claims from other places, by “fast-tracking” them on the assumption that they were “clearly unfounded”.

As Blair left office, the list was expanded to include Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mauritius, Montenegro, Peru and Serbia, along with the Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Sierra Leone (another liberal interventionist war zone). Nick Clegg, then the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, wrote an article for The Independent castigating the outgoing prime minister for “shamelessly” posing as “tough”, and calling for a “fair, effective and compassionate” approach instead.

He didn’t get one, even after he became Lib Dem leader and then deputy prime minister. By the time of the coalition government, the list of “safe” countries had been discontinued. It didn’t have much of an effect in speeding up asylum applications. If immigration officials prioritise one group of applicants, that means other groups are processed more slowly, unless there is an increase in staff numbers, which didn’t happen.

Nor could it have had any effect on asylum decisions made by courts and tribunals, as each application has to be considered on its merits – a decision made purely by reference to a list of supposedly safe countries would be open to challenge.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Those realities remain. The government cannot simply instruct the courts to reject asylum applications from Albania – even if it repealed the Modern Slavery Act, which has allegedly been invoked by many Albanian asylum seekers. It could try to process those applications and return failed applicants to Albania more quickly, but that would require efficient and well-staffed administration.

Another thing it cannot do is override the right of appeal, which is why one line in the Times report gave away how poorly thought-through the plan is: “Rejected claimants will have no right to appeal.”

The right of appeal is fundamental to the principles of British justice, but even if it wasn’t, it is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Braverman can go back to her “plan” to repudiate the convention, but Patel gave up on that, and Braverman will have as much luck with it as with this “white list” scheme.

Better administration of the asylum system, including – crucially – effective removals, is the main way of deterring unfounded claims. But chasing headlines is easier.