The 13 per cent fall in the number of new asylum-seekers over the past three months will come as a huge relief to the Government. On one of the most vexed and emotional domestic issues it is able to show that its policies, however controversial, at last appear to be paying off. Reducing the number of asylum-seekers has long been a priority for a Government that has felt under siege, from supporters and opponents alike, for its failure to get a grip. And although the latest figures from the Home Office contain many statistical caveats and show a continuing failure to deport those refused asylum, the Government can at least claim that a succession of tough measures is deterring people from heading to Britain.
Provisional figures show that 9,210 people, including dependants, applied for asylum in the second quarter of 2004. That is a far cry from the record of 8,900 in a single month, and part of a trend across Europe, where, with the exception of Italy, all countries have registered a fall in asylum applications. The reasons for this are complex, and voters should be as wary of government claims of success as they must be of tendentious statistical analysis which attempts to justify policies one way or the other.
Global trends have played a large part. In some countries, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, political freedom has grown, even if conditions have not become easier. In others, mostly in Africa, there has been a slight improvement in security. And in some, such as China, from where many still come, the authorities have responded to Western pleas by clamping down on “snakehead” people-smuggling gangs and attempting to restrict the flow of economic migrants.
In addition to this, Britain has taken a number of specific measures to make it less attractive as a destination. It has, controversially, restricted the benefits available to asylum-seekers and tightened the controls on where they live and what they can do. In the face of considerable criticism from human rights groups and refugee organisations, it has also restricted the appeals process so that those denied asylum can lodge only one appeal and cannot spin out their stay with repeated delays in the legal process. News of this has clearly travelled far.
The Government has also embarked on a vigorous campaign to force neighbours and other nations to co-operate. It has persuaded the French to close the Sangatte refugee camp, used by thousands as a staging post for attempts to smuggle themselves through the Channel Tunnel. It has stationed border controls on the French side and will do so soon also in Belgium. It has signed agreements with China and India on returning those refused asylum and is now negotiating with governments in Africa and elsewhere in the Third World.
Advertisement
Nevertheless, the rate of return remains abysmal. The figures show that of the 11,720 initial decisions on asylum, only 3 per cent were granted it outright, 7 per cent had leave to stay and 89 per cent were refused. Disturbingly, however, 9 per cent fewer of those refused asylum were deported in the past three months and 18 per cent fewer than during the same period last year. No asylum policy is credible if those refused remain in the country. And no policy is fair if deportations are so tardy that families and their children are wrenched after years from homes, schools and communities.
What to do with the vast backlog of cases remains a challenge. An amnesty would send the wrong signal; instead, the latest figures show a 54 per cent increase in the numbers allowed to stay on a “discretionary basis”, which is tantamount to an amnesty. Overall, progress has been made and should be acknowledged. But there is much to do before asylum, let alone immigration, is properly regulated and fairly policed.