More unfit for purpose at the Home Office

It’s reliance on a fraudulent expert in asylum cases fits a pattern of worrying disregard

It could well be true, as the right-wing mayor of Calais claimed recently, that Britain is held up as an “El Dorado” among the undocumented migrants who congregate in squalid limbo in one or other of that town’s informal camps. Certainly the willingness to risk death on a crossing – clinging to the undercarriage of a lorry, or braving the waters of the Channel – suggests some basis in fact. But the reality of life for asylum-seekers who do make it past Dover increasingly contradicts any idea that a life of plenty greets the exhausted traveller.

The United Kingdom boasts a proud history of offering asylum to those most in need, from Ugandans fleeing the purges of Idi Amin to Vietnamese uprooted by the intervention of Uncle Sam. The system remains superior to that in France and many other European nations, who fail to provide even a basic level of decency.

Yet as immigration has changed the make-up of Britain and risen to its current primacy among the concerns of voters, asylum has been pared back and tightened up.

This is partly to be welcomed: no country should feel obligated to host migrants who travel out of economic aspiration, but make the false claim, on arrival, that it was persecution that drove them from their homeland. But in the drive to save money and meet Coalition immigration targets, the balance looks to have tipped too far against the 27,000 men and women who are currently waiting for their asylum case to be heard.

Today we report exclusively on how against a backdrop of outsourcing, the Home Office may have wrongly deported hundreds of Somalis. Immigration officials supported asylum decisions with the testimony of a supposed expert from the Swedish firm Sprakab, who has been accused of not holding the qualifications he claimed to, and who has a conviction for drug smuggling. The fierce criticism of this man’s reports by a bona fide linguistics expert, Professor Peter Patrick, puts both Sprakab and the British Government to shame.

Somalis with a genuine case for asylum may be killed if forcibly sent home. To rely on a foreign firm, which has been criticised over its accuracy in the past, and linguistic analysis of taped conversations, which is in many ways subjective, puts too many degrees of separation between the Home Office and the men and women on whose lives it must adjudicate.

This forms part of a pattern that will not please anybody who believes Britain has a moral standing in the world – and should do all it can to develop and protect such a position. In August, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, froze the £36 weekly allowance for asylum-seekers for the third consecutive year (despite a High Court ruling that to do so was “irrational”), while an earlier report by the Home Affairs Select Committee condemned a backlog of 33,000 asylum cases – with some delayed by as many as 16 years.

Furthermore, while Germany this year vowed to offer sanctuary to 5,000 more refugees from Syria, Britain has taken in just 50 since the start of the crisis. And that is not just because Germany is larger than Britain. Per capita, Germany has already allowed in three times as many asylum-seekers as Britain, which ranks 16th out of the 27 EU countries on that basis.

The UK has been or is involved in many of the conflicts that have led to a mass exodus across the Middle East. It seeks to project an image of tolerance and humanity. A safe, speedy and generous asylum system should be a sine qua non for both these national traits.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in