Rishi Sunak’s attempt to cut the asylum backlog is cutting corners

Editorial: Government policy is likely to be pushing more asylum seekers into the underground economy

The asylum system needs a combination of extra money and tough leadership (PA Wire)

The prime minister’s pledge to clear the backlog of asylum applications is having perverse effects, as Lizzie Dearden, our home affairs editor, exclusively reports. The government is now withdrawing more claims than it is considering.

More than 6,000 people have been wiped off the list without being fully assessed, for failing to attend interviews or for failing to fill in questionnaires, in the first three months of this year. In 2,000 cases claims were “withdrawn” by Home Office officials without the applicants’ consent. At the same time, only 5,800 applications were decided, with 4,000 people granted protection and 1,800 claims refused.

This is no way to run an asylum system. Labour has accused the government of “cooking the books”, because applications withdrawn reduce the size of the backlog, while Craig Mackinlay, the Conservative MP, accuses the government of creating a loophole allowing thousands of potential asylum claimants to “disappear into the underground economy”. It is quite an achievement for the government to be criticised by both sides.

The problem is that throwing out asylum claims on minor pretexts is an easy way to get the backlog numbers down. It is a classic case of a target – in this case, cutting the total backlog – distorting activity and producing unintended consequences. The Home Office says that the increase in the number of withdrawn claims is the result of its efforts to “streamline” processing, but the reality is that withdrawing claims is easier than processing them and much, much easier than removing people who have had their claims rejected.

The situation is made worse by the rules that prevent people from working while waiting for their claims to be assessed. The Home Office says that this is necessary to minimise the “pull factor” for economic migrants, which might be a sustainable argument if the asylum system were working effectively and claims were assessed quickly. As it is, with around 100,000 people now waiting for more than a year for their claim to be processed, it means a tragic and unnecessary waste of human resources – and a significant incentive for people to abscond and join the informal economy, as Mr Mackinlay observes.

Mr Sunak makes much of one of his talking points whenever he is interviewed on this subject. He has secured a returns agreement with Albania – indeed, most of the claims that have been involuntarily withdrawn were from Albanians – and some Albanians have indeed been returned. But Albanians apart, hardly anyone whose claim for refugee status has been rejected has been removed from the country. Until those numbers start to rise, the Home Office cannot hope to get a grip on the process.

Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, is right to point out that the government is “not being honest with people”. Mr Sunak is trying to get better performance out of low-paid and demoralised Home Office staff, without putting in the sort of resources that are needed. But Labour, with its mantra of “no unfunded spending promises”, is not being honest with people either.

The asylum system needs a combination of extra money and tough leadership prepared to tackle the twin tasks of processing claims and removing rejected applicants. The British people know what needs to be done; they will respect any political leader who will do it.