Copyright independent
Ever since the Blair-era home secretary John Reid, a no-nonsense character, remarked 20 years ago that the Home Office was not “fit for purpose”, the phrase – along with the problem – has cropped up time and again. Indeed, it has done so twice in the past week. Shabana Mahmood, the latest incumbent to preside over that infamous graveyard of ministerial ambition, said a few days ago that her department was “not yet fit for purpose”, after the emergence of a confidential internal report from 2023 that highlighted, among other fatal flaws, a “culture of defeatism” on the issue of immigration and “a sense that high failure rates are an unavoidable fact of life in the system”. That came as no great surprise, and neither do the latest findings of the home affairs select committee. Its chair, Dame Karen Bradley, who herself served as a junior Home Office minister under the Conservatives, couldn’t resist agreeing that, indeed, the department “isn’t fit for purpose” and needs to be reformed. Dame Karen and her colleagues are right to be appalled, in particular, about the billions “squandered” on asylum hotels – a solution that satisfies no one. The asylum seekers are jammed into rooms meant for a short stay by one or two people; the communities that often unwillingly host them worry about crime, and the disruption and violence that protests bring; and the system is appallingly expensive for the taxpayer – set to cost some £15.3bn over the decade to 2029. Such sums rightly cause outrage, as another tough Budget approaches that will squeeze living standards once again. Part of this failure is undoubtedly bureaucratic, deriving from what seems to be a culture of failure within the department. Blame must also be attributed to a long line of Conservative ministers who combined hardline rhetoric with meagre results. They oversaw the wasted billions and the chaos, and had nothing more constructive to offer than their attempt to make it illegal to claim asylum (which it cannot be under international law), and their refusal to process claims, thus allowing a huge backlog to build up. The chimerical Rwanda plan was supposed to solve everything by providing a “safe” third-country destination that could accommodate the approximately 40,000 refugees arriving in the UK on small boats, but it was ill conceived and never got off the ground. Historical and international experience teaches us that stemming flows of migration is extremely difficult. “Smashing the gangs”, the “one in, one out” agreement with France, and other measures being implemented on the French coast will take time to work. In the short to medium term, therefore, the reality is that tens of thousands of irregular migrants will still find a way to come to the UK by small boat, while others will simply overstay their visa. Their claims will have to be processed far more rapidly, and some large-scale third-party agreements will be needed in the case of failed applicants for asylum who cannot be returned. Human rights legislation may have to be amended to prevent abuses of the system, and more resources will be needed to clear the remains of the backlog that unforgivably grew under the Tories. All the same, accommodation will be needed for many thousands of people who have committed no crime except to try to enter the country and claim asylum – a universal human right. That accommodation cannot be in hotels, and the government cannot conceivably proceed on the basis of its current target, which is to cease the use of hotels by the end of this parliament. The public will not put up with that. Given the state of public opinion, it is imperative that the prime minister puts this right quickly. The government should build the new prefabricated sites for asylum seekers that ministers propose, and convert disused military accommodation – provided that these dilapidated buildings can be made fit for human habitation. This will cost money, but it would be far more acceptable to communities than requisitioning hotels with zero local consultation. Such detention centres should provide what the public would expect – clean, orderly and safe housing for all concerned, for a maximum stay of weeks rather than years, with restricted freedom of movement. One of the most grievous consequences of the default use of hotels was to allow extremists to stoke race-based fears and discredit the whole concept of refugee status. Perhaps the never-quite-fit-for-purpose Home Office needs to be restructured, though that has been tried before and made no difference; the prisons are still close to breaking point now that they are under the Ministry of Justice. Such desirable reforms, in any case, fail to address the immediate need: to end the use of asylum hotels over the coming months. It could be done: the “Nightingale” hospitals were built in impressive time, with the help of the army, during the pandemic, and it cannot be beyond the ability of an advanced G7 economy to find some way to accommodate refugees safely. It would ease tensions, and demonstrate that the Labour government can get something popular done for a change. Ms Mahmood needs to reach for her hard hat and hi-vis jacket, and get the construction crews on site – without delay.
