Exclusive: Rishi Sunak has been accused of “cooking the books” to cut the asylum backlog as thousands of claims are removed from the system following his pledge
The administrative "withdrawal" of asylum claims has quadrupled since the prime minister pledged in December to clear the pre-June 2022 asylum backlog
The Home Office is now withdrawing more claims than it decides, sparking accusations the backlog is being cut “by the back door”
Official guidance seen by The Independent states that applications can be withdrawn by the Home Office without the asylum seeker’s consent – even if it has been unable to contact them and does not know where they are, with a notification letter “served to file only”
Once removed from the system, people are ineligible for the housing and financial support offered to destitute asylum seekers
A Tory MP said they can then “disappear without a trace”, Labour warned of "underground economy" and charities fear homelessness and exploitation
In the 3 months before PM's pledge, 397 asylum claims were withdrawn without consent, but between January and March it was 2,029
“This is done to basically bring the backlog down,” an official told me. “A lot of interviews were booked to withdraw as many claims as possible.”
The use of the tactic is thought to have intensified after the most recent official figures ended on 31 March
Triggers for withdrawal include “failure to complete an asylum questionnaire”, “failure to attend a reporting event”, “failure to attend asylum interview” and absconding
On paper, the tactic is proving successful in bringing down the number of asylum claims in the backlog the PM pledged to clear by the end of this year
In reality, the vast majority of those people are still in the UK without any meaningful conclusion to their claim
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Disabled asylum seekers and torture victims are among those that the Home Office has attempted to put on the Bibby Stockholm - in violation of its own guidance
And it is now facing a wider challenge against the Bibby Stockholm
The charity Migrants Organise has sent a pre-action letter to the Home Office calling for it to stop transfers “until and unless all concerns regarding the safety and suitability of the barge have been addressed"
Rules imposed by the Home Office itself exclude categories of vulnerable people from the barge, where they will be housed in cabins stuffed with bunk beds
It has been violating that guidance because of failures to properly screen people for physical and mental health conditions
Today, I was one of the journalists given an official tour of the Home Office's new asylum barge, the Bibby Stockholm
It sits behind 15ft metal fencing and two sets of guarded gates, with 222 tiny cabins modified to house 500 people independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
Most cabins feature an austere two-person bunk bed, desk, metal wardrobe and en-suite bathroom, with the door just an arm’s length away from the bedframe. But a small number of slightly larger rooms have two or three bunk beds in each
TVs are on the wall but are disconnected
Every time they enter and leave the barge, they must go through airport-style security
No one can leave the “secure compound” surrounding the vessel without waiting for a shuttle bus to take them to the port exit, which officials say is needed for safety reasons https://t.co/wQjsIqbtaGtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Exclusive: Home Office staff could strike if forced to implement the Rwanda deal and new small boats bill
Many fear the measures are unlawful and could put them at legal risk, and say they are sick of “constant downwards political pressure” independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, which represents almost 16,000 staff across different Home Office departments and Border Force, said it was “ruling absolutely nothing out in terms of responses to look after the welfare of our members” and could ballot for strike
Head of bargaining Paul O’Connor told me: “There will be no stomach amongst our members for implementing the Rwanda deal and Illegal Migration Bill. They will inevitably come to their union to see if there is recourse to stop it happening."
A significant amount of responses to this story are suggesting that I have been "briefed" by civil servants/political opponents, or that it's part of a "witch-hunt"
It is being published this week in part because of the speeding story, which is unrelated but obviously drives interest in other potential breaches of the ministerial code
I started the investigation in November because of this passing comment to the Home Affairs Committee
Why, I thought, would Suella Braverman have visited Rwanda? Was it a holiday?
I started digging and uncovered the trips she was referring to were on a Kagame-supported Tory volunteering programme called Project Umubano
Exclusive: Suella Braverman is facing fresh allegations of ministerial code breaches over her failure to formally disclose previous work with the Rwandan government
The home secretary co-founded a charity called the Africa Justice Foundation with Cherie Blair, which trained Rwandan government lawyers between 2010 and 2015
Several people the charity worked with are current members of Paul Kagame’s government or working in its departments
Ms Braverman (then Fernandes) resigned from her post as director of the Africa Justice Foundation weeks before being elected as an MP in 2015
She did not declare her previous role to Home Office permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft when she was appointed as home secretary
The head of a 7-year inquiry that found a “national epidemic” of child sex abuse in Britain has condemned govt for failing to accept all of its recommendations
Suella Braverman announced consultations for a new victims’ redress scheme and mandatory reporting duty, but the govt only partially accepted some calls from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and rejected others
Several are subject to consultation/review
When IICSA’s final report was released, the government said it would respond in full to its recommendations within six months - which would have been in April.
Several recommendations from previous reports focusing on specific institutions and themes have not been implemented