Without action, anti-migrant protests in Dover and Portsmouth risk becoming the norm

Thank you for subscribing!

The Home Office is plagued by inefficiencies undermining British citizens, writes migration expert Rakib Ehsan

Providing further evidence of the utter dysfunctionality of Britain's asylum system, a damning United Nations audit has warned migrants risk being granted refuge despite not being entitled to protection because of decision-making failings at the Home Office.

The UN investigators discovered only 52 per cent of decisions assessed met the department's own quality standards in 2023/24 – the worst performance recorded.

The figure showed a dramatic fall from the previous year’s 72 per cent.

The researchers who conducted the audit identified a "failure to probe material facts", an over-reliance on closed questions and instances of interpreters condensing applicants' answers rather than translating them in full.

The report raised concerns pressure on asylum decision-making had resulted in cases progressing before they were sufficiently prepared.

The findings of the UN audit will understandably heighten anxieties over the performance of the Home Office in terms of its management and processing of asylum claims – a Government department which is essentially the UK’s interior ministry that is responsible for immigration, national security and public safety.

These findings come after a Home Office whistleblower claimed just one per cent of asylum seekers are genuine, as he alleged "massive fraud" was taking place.

Speaking to The Times, he said: “At best one per cent of asylum seekers are genuine. There's almost no aspect of the asylum system that isn't either a massive fraud or just really dysfunctional. Nothing works as it should.”

While a spokesman for the Home Office has replied to the UN audit by saying Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is “taxing tough action to fix our broken immigration system by removing incentives that draw people here illegally and scaling up removals of those with no right to be in the UK”, far stronger and swifter action needs to be taken.

Part of rectifying the faults of the UK’s asylum system may have to entail reforming an underperforming Home Office which appears to be plagued by inefficiencies which have the potential to undermine the safety of its own citizens.

The reality is the UK’s human-rights framework needs a radical overhaul if it is to have an asylum system that has national security, social cohesion, and public order at the heart of it.

As it stands, the UK is "El Dorado" for illegal migrants hoping to be granted refugee status. This must change, even if it means withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Right and re-evaluating our relationship with the 1951 Refugee Convention.

There is also a debate to be had over the Home Office’s future – currently comprising 50,000 civil servants – and whether it is fit for purpose.

An option is splitting the Home Office into two separate departments – one which focuses on immigration, asylum and border security, with the other focusing on crime and policing.

Others, however, will argue it is not so much a matter of the Home Office dealing with too many responsibilities but rather a cultural-institutional issue – that many civil servants allow their progressive liberal mindset to interfere with fulfilling their own duties and responsibilities.

This school of thought would be more supportive of a clearing of the Augean stables, which is understandable but would be incredibly disruptive.

What is clear is when it comes to matters of immigration and asylum in Britain, a continuation of the status quo is not remotely sustainable.

Without robust and effective action that delivers noteworthy results, recent scenes from the Port of Dover and Portsmouth risk becoming the norm – something Labour should want to avoid at all costs.