OUT ON the doorstep, asylum remains a major concern. My point is this: there have been abuses; there are still. But they are being dealt with. And they should not be exploited for baser political reasons.

First of all let us set the context. Forty years ago the number of claims was small and the overwhelming majority were genuine. Now, the dramatic increase of asylum-seekers to all EU countries includes large numbers of economic migrants who take advantage of easier travel. Many destroy identity papers on arrival and claim asylum with invented stories of persecution, often bought readymade from bogus advisers.

As a result of new laws and other action, claims have fallen 70 per cent since their peak in 2002 — a rate of reduction twice that achieved in the rest of Europe. Claims are now at the level of 1997 and we must get them down farther.

Closing Sangatte, the hi-tech screening of freight lorries at Calais, winning agreement for UK immigration officers to work on French soil, fast-track processing and restricting benefits to those denied asylum have all played a part. So has investment in staff and equipment.

It is not only applications that are down. Four out of five claims are now decided in two months rather than the twenty months we inherited. The backlog of claims is at a ten-year low. The cost of supporting asylum-seekers while their claims are heard is steadily falling.

But despite this progress, there remain genuine concerns about how our asylum system operates. These increasingly focus on the removal of those whose claims have been turned down. Raising such concerns is neither extremist nor racist. Indeed, ignoring abuse plays into the hands of extremists.

We were right to concentrate first on reducing unfounded applications. But David Blunkett and I also accept that we have to increase efforts to remove those who remain in this country when their applications have failed.

Removing failed asylum- seekers, however, is not as simple as it is often painted. Above all, there must be a country to which they can be returned. Immigration officers have often explained the difficulties to me. Some countries want absolute proof that the failed asylum-seekers are of their nationality before they will take them back. But many destroy their passports so that their nationality is harder to prove. Also, unless there are detention places, failed asylum-seekers can disappear before removal. In 1997, there were just 900 places.

Thankfully, we have been making significant progress. We are removing a far greater number of failed asylum-seekers, though not enough. We are gradually closing the gap between the number of failed asylum applicants and the number removed. In 1996, the number of removals was equivalent to only 20 per cent of unsuccessful claims. So far this year, that proportion is almost 50 per cent.

But I accept that we need to do a great deal more. It can make a mockery of our asylum system if those properly denied the right to stay simply flout this decision. It is unfair to those who play by the rules and sends the wrong message to those who may try to come to this country without genuine cause. It undermines public faith in the system.

Building on our success in reducing applications, we now want a step change in the number of failed applicants who leave this country. By the end of next year, we want the monthly rate of removals to exceed the number of unfounded applications so that we start making increasing inroads into the backlog.

Today, I will be setting out the next steps of our strategy to achieve this. First, we will be taking firm action to clamp down on those who deliberately conceal their identity. Already, our network of airline liaison officers is preventing thousands of people boarding aircraft to the UK when they have the wrong or inadequate documents. And we have introduced biometrics into visas from high-risk countries to catch visa holders who destroy their documents and try to claim using a false identity.

But there are still thousands who are destroying their documents en route or at the airport once they land in the UK. Up to 70 per cent of people claiming asylum at British ports say they have no passport or other identity documents — often because they have been told to destroy them by organised people traffickers.

This cannot be acceptable. So from next week it will be an offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to arrive in the UK without documents or to refuse to co-operate with redocumentation by your embassy during the removal process.

Secondly, over the next seven months we will be bringing on stream almost 1,000 extra immigration detention spaces to take the total to 2,750, triple the 1997 figure. The first 326 of those places were opened yesterday at the new removals centre at Colnbrook.

Thirdly, we will be redoubling diplomatic efforts to persuade those countries which generate the highest numbers of unfounded applicants to speed up redocumentation procedures so that we can remove people as rapidly as possible. Already we have groundbreaking agreements with countries such as Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and India.

We rightly have a proud tradition of offering a haven to those fleeing persecution. But an asylum system, if it is to retain the full confidence of the public, must be seen as fair and balanced. And that means ensuring that asylum decisions make a difference to whether people stay in this country.

Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too
• They’re still wriggling to avoid the flak on Iraq
• Rule the waves? Not any more we don’t