With my thinking dulled with pain killers and not properly reading the emergency motion, Restoring International Development Assistance – Liberal Democrats I didn’t put a card in to speak.
The speeches were excellent, and it was one of those times when I was very proud to be a Liberal Democrat.
While increased defence spending is essential to support Ukraine and ensure the UK’s security, it cannot and should not be met through unfair measures like cutting our Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the 0.7% of GDP agreed under The Coalition, to 0.5% under the Conservative Government, to Labour’s proposal of 0.3%. In addition to those cuts, the cost of housing asylum seekers here is being paid out that budget. Millions of the most deprived in the world will suffer and die because of these cuts.
One of the issues not spoken about, though was our proposal in the motion:
A halt to the charging of asylum hosting costs to the ODA budget, freeing up billions for global poverty reduction, climate action and humanitarian response.
The costs of asylum housing are far more than they should be for 2 reasons. Firstly, too many people are seeking sanctuary in the UK by claiming asylum because there are no safe routes now. Under a “safe route” managed by UNHCR a number of those living in danger of their lives can come here with refugee status and different ways of providing housing. In the past decade that has successfully brought people from Syria and Ukraine to be welcomed to safety here without claiming asylum, and without the high cost of asylum housing.
Secondly, the cost of housing for asylum seekers has rocketed owing to slow and inefficient ways of determining status of asylum seekers. At the end of December 2024 91,000 people were awaiting a decision, 3 times as many as in May 2018. 55% have been waiting for more than six months.
Our Liberal Democrat policy says that what is needed is to tackle the asylum backlog is a radical overhaul by establishing a dedicated unit outside the Home Office, without the threat of political interference, to improve the speed and quality of asylum decision-making, introducing a service standard of three months for all but the most complex asylum claims to be processed. Decisions should be right first time and not needing to be appealed against. 75% of decisions need to be appealed against, extending the need for asylum seekers to be housed.
Another factor is just who is going to benefit from the number of asylum seekers having to be in accommodation provided by the Home Office? Accommodation is often unsatisfactory when contracted out to the private sector and they have no choice about it. So keeping them there, for much longer than needed, profits the private sector.
Is this really the way to spend money allocated to tackling world poverty?
* 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.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
13 Comments
Thanks Suzanne, it would have been a good speech on a topic not raised in the debate.
Most people I speak to about the asylum system in the UK are convinced that it does not work. The overwhelming view is that most asylum claims are being made as a tactic to remain in the UK and that too great a proportion of these claims are granted. As Liberal Democrats, we need to fight for the right of those who are genuinely fleeing for their lives to be welcomed on their arrival. But we must also be clear that we will not allow people to abuse the asylum process. The standard should be that decisions on asylum claims are made within days – not months – and that those who lose their asylum claims but wish to appeal should be detained pending final adjudication rather than housed in hotels.
If we do not take a firm line supporting the genuine but removing the bogus, the far-right will be able to gain support by taking a hard line against all who claim asylum whether genuine or not.
@Mike Peters. thanks, but I cannot agree with your words : “The standard should be that decisions on asylum claims are made within days – not months – and that those who lose their asylum claims but wish to appeal should be detained pending final adjudication rather than housed in hotels.”
It will take more than days for evidence to be put together, but a properly run system would not take more than 3 months.
Hotels are not the answer, and never have been. Until around 5 years ago they had not or had hardly been used. Asylum seekers were housed in the community and where the housing provider contracted by the Home Office was decent, it worked well.
Support from the community was, and still is, given with organised Drop Ins and so on. It allowed those seeking asylum to begin to integrate and whilst not at the speed they wanted and needed, learn english. They also were able to add to our community life and enrich us as volunteers in a range of roles from church treasurers to charity shops, to say nothing of widening our food experiences.
Hotels only began to be used when the Home Office decision making ground to an almost halt.
In detention it is extremely expensive (£122 per person per night) completely demoralising and helps nobody at all. It is our party policy that detention is only to be used as a last resort and only just prior to removal.
There has been 2 Alternatives to Detention pilot schemes, with people living in the community and with appropiate legal and other support. there is Party approval of this scheme, which I could write more about, but that would be another article!
A good solution, both for the State & Asylum Seeker, would be to allow them to seek work if their claim hasn’t been dealt with within 3 months. This would allow them to be earning money to house & feed themselves while waiting rather than be an expense on the State.
@Leon Duveen quite right, right to work has been what our party has called for since Lord Roger Robert did in 2008. Not only embedded in our party policy but what asylum seekers themselves very much want to do.
They want to use their skills and also contribute to the country that they have sought sanctuary with.
I will never forget one proud woman from Zimbabwe, baby strapped to her chest, at a conference, saying “in MY country we expect to work, not to be given hand outs from our government”.
(many years later when she got leave to remain she did various jobs then started her own cleaning business where she guarantees “hard work”.)
Currently a third of all Asylum claims are made by those who’s visa has expired – student or work visa. Either the situation has changed dramatically in their home countries since that visa was granted – or they are taking advantage of the system under already huge pressure.
Immigration is stifling progressive governments across the EU & shows no sign of slowing. The debate will dominate politics for the foreseeable. Of course the hotel accommodation is expensive – it’s the only accommodation available at such short notice .
UK towns have seen unprecedented change in demographics in recent years and many are deeply unhappy with that situation – there is no point in believing otherwise. Of course if you were a British single male presenting yourself as homeless to the local authority you’d get nowt in regards to an emergency placement unless it was below freezing – it’s a cardboard box for them .
@Craig Levene
You make valid points. Most people do not believe in open borders – they believe in managed immigration with people being granted permission to move permanently to the UK when they will be filling a shortage area of the labour market. These same people object to people moving to, or remaining the UK, without permission while others are waiting to apply in the proper way. They accept genuine asylum seekers fleeing for their lives but not those abusing the asylum system. This is not to do with racism, but fairness.
So we as Liberal Democrats have to be super clear on our position: do we support open borders? If not, how will we enforce that? And that means being clear on how we will quickly identify genuine asylum seekers, and then rapidly remove all others who are found to be in the country without legal permission.
@Mike Peters. this is what it says in the LD4SOS mini manifesto (all approved party policy). So not open borders, and note what it says about the 1951 refugee convention. People have the right to claim asylum. Whether that claim is accepted or not should be done with fairness and justice. It takes some time to assemble the case together to make that judgement but should be done within 3 months and what is often years.
A SAFE AND WELCOMING ENVIRONMENT
• Those seeking asylum should be treated humanely, with compassion and respect, including those who are eventually returned. A climate of fear helps no one.
We will:
• Unequivocally commit to remaining members of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Ensure that all current UK legislation is compliant with the ECHR, making amendments where necessary and scrapping the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda Act in full.
• We reiterate our commitment to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and to the right of every person to seek and enjoy asylum, and be improved so that it properly upholds obligations under the Convention.
• Asylum seekers have a right to not be penalised for illegal entry to a country.
• We endorse EU search and rescue operations and tackling criminal people-smuggling.
• We strongly oppose all forms of racism, division of societies and hatred against human beings.
Thanks, Suzanne Fletcher
So, as you have confirmed, current party is silent or how we would enforce a ‘no open border’ position. That needs to be clarified if our policy is to have any credibility.
Suzanne, thank you for repeating our good policy on asylum seekers again and pointing out how much of our depleted ‘international aid’ money actually goes on accommodating them. I believe our party must keep insisting that funds be found to raise the proportion of international aid funding back to 0.5% of GNI as quickly as possible. I have written to our spokesperson on international aid, Monica Harding MP, who moved the emergency motion we passed, to ask if she will raise the issue in a PMQ question and keep pressing on it. The asylum questions must also be repeated, and other funds allocated for them.
@Leon: The problem with allowing asylum seekers to work and earn money is that it gives a huge incentive to economic migrants to game the system. Imagine you want to work in the UK because here you can earn many times the pittance you’d earn at home, but you have no grounds to claim asylum. Just go to the UK, claim asylum, and then spend the period until your claim is rejected earning lots of money to take home with you. I’m pretty sure that’s why successive Governments have been unwilling to give asylum seekers the right to work.
You suggest only allowing people to work after 3 months – that might be workable but only if we reach a point where almost all claims have in fact been processed within 3 months, so would-be migrants can see there is very little chance that they would be able to work prior to a rejection.
The other issue is – how many employers would actually be willing to offer work to someone who stands a high chance of being removed from the UK within a few months.
“While increased defence spending is essential to support Ukraine and ensure the UK’s security, it cannot and should not be met through unfair measures like cutting our Official Development Assistance (ODA) “. I agree with the first part and would like to agree with the second, but as a party we have to be clear where it WOULD come from and I don’t hear that clarity right now. If we are clear could we publicise it more?
Martin Pierce,
One of the amendments to the Trump motion (F14) passed at our Spring Conference, set out what tax we would increase to pay for increasing defence spending rather than by cutting foreign aid. It states, ‘Committing to spending 2.5% of GDP (on defence) as soon as possible – to be funded by raising the Digital Services Tax from 2% to 10%’.