NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

There is an old saying: **?If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.?** The same principle applies to government. If Britain wants to change its immigration system, it will cost money. There is no point pretending otherwise. More border enforcement costs money. More asylum decision-makers cost money. Police investigations cost money. Detention and removals cost money. International agreements cost money. And improving the system will require investment. But there is another question that must be asked. **What is the cost of doing nothing?** ## Doing nothing is not free It can sometimes look as though maintaining the current system is the cheaper option. It isn't necessarily. If asylum decisions take too long, accommodation costs continue. If people cannot be returned after a final refusal, the costs continue. If smugglers continue operating, more people will attempt the journey. If crossings continue, more resources are required for border enforcement and emergency responses. And if public confidence continues to fall, there can be political and social consequences that are much harder to put a price on. So the choice is not necessarily between: **Spend money** or **Save money.** It may be between: **Spend money changing the system** or **Continue spending money maintaining a system that is not producing the desired result.** That is a very different question. ## Invest where it makes a difference The answer should not simply be to throw more money at immigration. More money does not automatically mean better results. If a department is badly organised, giving it another billion pounds does not necessarily solve the problem. The Government should identify where money would produce the greatest improvement. For example: If extra staff could clear a large backlog quickly, that may be a sensible investment. If better intelligence could help dismantle major smuggling organisations, that may be a sensible investment. If improved international cooperation could significantly increase lawful returns, that may be a sensible investment. But if a programme repeatedly fails to produce results, it should be changed. ## Set targets Every major part of the system should have measurable targets. How quickly should an asylum claim normally be decided? How long should an appeal take? How many cases should each trained decision-maker be able to process? How many people with final refusals can realistically be returned each month? How many smuggling networks are being investigated? How many criminal assets are being seized? How many attempted crossings are being prevented? These are not impossible questions. Governments already measure performance in many other areas. Immigration should be treated in the same way. ## Publish the results There is another simple proposal. **Tell the public whether the targets are being met.** If the Government succeeds, say so. If it fails, say so. If a policy costs more than expected, explain why. If a policy does not work, change it. That would be a refreshing approach to government. It would also help reduce the endless argument over whether politicians are telling the truth. The numbers would be there for everyone to see. ## The cheapest solution may be the quickest one There is a strong argument that the most important investment is speed. If Britain can make accurate asylum decisions quickly, several other problems become easier. People with genuine claims can begin rebuilding their lives. People whose claims fail can move through the appropriate departure process. Temporary accommodation is needed for less time. The backlog becomes smaller. Government staff can concentrate on new cases rather than constantly dealing with old ones. And the public can see that the system is functioning. Speed does not mean cutting corners. It means giving the system