Immigration: Labour would ‘fast-track’ asylum claims from Albania and other ‘safe countries’ - plan explained

The Labour Party has said it would “fast-track” the processing of asylum seekers from Albania and other ‘safe’ countries in a bid to tackle the backlog of claims.

It comes as the UK’s migration crisis continues, with more than 44,000 people crossing the English Channel in small boats in 2022 - the highest number since records began in 2018. From January until June of this year, 7,000 Albanians have made asylum applications in Britain, but figures reveal that just 50 of those (0.7%) have had their cases determined.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is therefore calling for an immediate “fast-tracking” scheme so that any asylum claims deemed “unfounded” can be “rejected and returned in a matter of weeks.” She also accused government ministers of “failing to get a grip” on the problem.

According to reports, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman are currently already considering a range of stricter immigration policies which they said will “deliver the operational and legislative changes necessary to comprehensively tackle this problem.” However, they have not yet announced official new measures.

So what exactly is The Labour Party suggesting, and how do their plans differ from the Tories’? Here’s what both the government and opposition have said about how they will tackle rising migration.

What is the Labour Party calling for?

Labour is calling for the fast-tracking of asylum claims for all migrants who have arrived from countries which appear on the Home Office’s ‘safe’ list. The idea is reportedly based on similar systems used by other countries such as Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, which Labour said “have been recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).”

The party wrote: “Accelerating clearly unfounded cases allows for people to be swiftly returned so the asylum system can then focus on those who have fled persecution and conflict - saving the taxpayer significant amounts of money on expensive and inappropriate hotel accommodation for those whose claims will likely be rejected, but who are waiting for years due to Home Office incompetence.”

Shadow Home Secretary Cooper added that a fast-track system would “get a grip [of the problem], clear the backlog, and start targeting the criminal gangs who are driving this.” She admitted to the BBC that “more complex” cases would require further consideration, but that “there are very straightforward cases that should be able to be decided very swiftly.”

When Labour was last in power, it introduced a fast-track scheme for ‘safe’ countries which involved detaining applicants at a former army barracks near Cambridge whilst their applications were processed. But the scheme faced significant controversy and legal challenges, and was eventually suspended in 2015.

The very notion of a ‘safe’ list has also sparked controversy amongst various refugee charities. Recently for instance, discussion has turned to Albania due to the high number of asylum seekers arriving from the country. But despite its appearance on the list, NationalWorld recently revealed that more than a quarter of modern slavery victims identified in the UK are Albanian.

What is the government doing?

The government has not ruled out setting up a fast-track process, so could still do something that matches what Labour has proposed. It has also not yet specified any new measures that will be taken to deal with migration, but Braverman recently endorsed a report by the Centre For Policy Studies which recommended the following:

• Indefinite detention of all asylum seekers who enter the country illegally.
• Legislation barring migrants who enter the country illegally from ever settling in Britain.
• Laws making it impossible to claim asylum in the UK after travelling from a safe country.
• All asylum seekers entering illegally to then be sent to Rwanda or other countries with whom the UK has struck an “offshoring” deal.
• Changes to human rights laws to allow detention and offshoring — including, if necessary, Britain’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.
• A reformed Modern Slavery Act, including a ban on whole nationalities, such as Albania, using the act to claim asylum where there is widespread abuse.
• The creation of an identity database and system of mandatory identity cards.

Braverman said she does “not agree with everything in the report”, but does “welcome it as a vital and necessary contribution to the policy debate about what can be done to tackle the crossings.”

Refugee Council CEO Enver Solomon slammed the report, telling NationalWorld: “The policies outlined would amount to the UK walking away from the Refugee Convention. The government seems intent on doubling down on the hostile environment with increasingly harsh, unworkable policies, which fly in the face of our long-standing international commitment to provide safe haven to those fleeing war and persecution, regardless of how they escape to the UK.”

He added that while the asylum system is not currently operating effectively, “the answers don’t lie in floating more punitive measures” which are “impracticable” and “completely out of step with British values.” The solutions, he argued, include creating a dedicated task force to tackle the backlog of asylum cases, and helping develop “the safe routes needed to address what is a global refugee challenge.”

The United Nations refugee agency said an accelerated process for clearly unfounded claims can comply with international refugee law, as long as certain safeguards are met.

What is the current process?

Currently, asylum claims from designated ‘safe’ countries are normally considered unfounded - unless the person applying can show otherwise. If that fails, they generally do not have the right to appeal. They can, however, try to argue the decision was unlawful on procedural grounds.

You can read more about how the UK’s asylum application process works here.