If I heard rightly there was a reference in a speech this morning to dealing with the unacceptable backlog of asylum decisions by having Nightingale Centres, just as there were special Nightingale centres for if needed during Covid.

But no mention of how they would be any different to the system there is now, which is clearly not working, with a growing backlog, and a high rate of successful appeals against wrong decisions.

I know of course that the problem of the backlog has escalated dramatically, leading to acute shortages of suitable accommodation for those seeking asylum, and the use of hotels.  As well, of course, of the human misery of being what can be years with a life in limbo.  But way back in 2012 it was recognised that the backlog needed to be sorted, and a Lib Dem Policy working group detailed ways forward, culminating in “Making Migration Work for Britain” policy document 116 accepted by Conference in 2015.  It said “A priority for Liberal Democrats is to create a border security system that makes well-informed and appropriate decisions taken as early as possible; with people treated with humanity and dignity; and where the rule of law is upheld. Any new system must do more to ensure Britain is open to the benefits of migration, while remaining secure from those who would abuse the system.”

This policy was developed in “A Fair Deal for Everyone: Prosperity and Dignity in Migration”  Policy Paper 131 in 2019, where we said “Liberal Democrats would establish a dedicated unit for dealing with asylum applications that will work with DfID, with the aim of improving the speed and quality of decision-making without the threat of any political interference.”

So we have Liberal Democrat alternatives, other than “I wouldn’t have started from here.”

We start from the premise that there needs to be radical reform, independent of central Government, to speed up decision making.  Such should be taken out of political control completely and move towards a caseworker-model of support for applicants, to seek just outcomes that are right first time.  It isn’t just a quicker decision that is needed but one that is right first time.  43% of decisions are appealed and 67% of those are allowed first time.  If the cost of appeals were to be transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office that would make a difference.  It is easy to refuse and then hope a person did not appeal.  They would think twice if they had to fund the appeal process.

Instead of the starting point being a culture of disbelief, and a determination to refuse people, it should be based on basic measures of fairness and justice.  We should actively promote a change of culture, away from the current unfriendly, poor-quality approach towards a more normal customer-friendly model, where staff see themselves as caseworkers, there to help people navigate the system and provide appropriate support, whatever the outcome of their application.  This would be alongside changes in departmental responsibilities for migration policy.

Much better training for staff is needed for those who deal directly with more vulnerable groups.  A new focus should be on how the rules affect victims of torture or trafficking, mentally ill people, pregnant women, children, LGBT+ people and those who fled because of their religious or non-religious beliefs, or who are at risk if returned because they have since converted to another faith or belief.  We need to ensure that caseworkers making these decisions have the appropriate training and skill set to understand the key issues and to question sensitively.

Also ensure that better interpretation and translation services are available at each stage of the process, with safeguards in place to ensure that interpreters and translators dealing with each case have the language knowledge required. This would ensure a common understanding of the issues and enable the correct decision to be arrived at more quickly and cost-effectively.

Having a new type of centre, with a new name needs not just to incorporate all of this, but the whole country is talking about “hotels”.  During the rest of conference, I not just hope, but expect, that these principles are talked about and expounded.  They are radical, humane, and just.

A huge amount of effort and expense goes into policy groups and then going to conference to agree our policies.  Let us make it worthwhile.

* Suzanne Fletcher was a councillor for nearly 30 years and a voluntary advice worker with the CAB for 40 years. Now retired, she is active as a campaigner in the community both as a Lib Dem and with local organisations and author of "Bold as Brass?", the story of Brass Crosby.