UK Home Office rules on asylum seekers branded ‘ludicrous’ by Labour MP

Asylum seekers in Napier Barracks, near Folkestone, in Kent, England. (Getty Images)
Short Url
Updated 25 January 2023
Follow

UK Home Office rules on asylum seekers branded ‘ludicrous’ by Labour MP

  • Tens of thousands unable to receive application outcomes while stuck in temporary shelters
  • Up to 45,000 have yet to find permanent accommodation, costing the UK millions

LONDON: The UK is unable to tell thousands of asylum seekers in temporary accommodation whether or not their applications have been approved or rejected because of rules branded “totally ludicrous” by a senior Labour MP.

A report by The Independent revealed UK Home Office rules prevent asylum seekers in hotels from receiving information on the outcome of their cases “until they have been moved from initial accommodation.”

The UK is facing a backlog in processing cases, with more than 140,000 people awaiting decisions. Home Secretary Suella Braverman has blamed delays on an increase in migrants crossing the English Channel illegally in small boats last year combined with “low productivity” in the civil service.

It has led to private landlords and companies being asked to provide shelter, with hotels and holiday parks repurposed to house people from as far afield as Syria and Afghanistan, with the two countries making up the largest asylum seeker cohorts.

Asylum seekers are meant to spend just a month in the shelters, but there are about 45,000 people who have yet to have been moved to more permanent locations.

Some have been waiting for well over a year for an outcome despite approval rates at nearly 98 percent for Afghans and Syrians, with asylum seekers left unable to work until their applications are approved.

They are forced to rely on the state for shelter and food, receiving additional support of as little as £8 ($9.85) a week, costing the UK taxpayer about £7 million every day.

Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, told The Independent: “This is just increasing the costs to the taxpayer, too, as thousands of people are stuck in hotels, because the Home Office can’t get a grip.”

Dame Diana Johnson, chair of the House of Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee, told the newspaper: “The government’s slow asylum processes have left some individuals waiting years for their claim to be decided. The result is an enormous backlog of asylum claims, a huge hotel bill for the public purse and people left in limbo — unable to move forward with their lives.

“The prime minister (Rishi Sunak) has publicly pledged to clear the asylum backlog by the end of this year. It is concerning to hear of yet another potential blockage in Home Office processes undermining this promise. We need urgent clarification from the government on this.”

Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, told The Independent: “The Home Office’s failure to communicate its decisions on people’s asylum claims in a timely manner is deeply damaging to men, women and children who have lost everything.

“Refugees who are stuck in limbo in our asylum system have gone through extremely traumatic experiences and all they want is to feel safe and be able to integrate in the UK.”


UK upper house approves social media ban for under-16s

Updated 22 January 2026
Follow

UK upper house approves social media ban for under-16s

LONDON: Britain’s upper house of parliament voted Wednesday in favor of banning under?16s from using social media, raising pressure on the government to match a similar ban passed in Australia.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday he was not ruling out any options and pledged action to protect children, but his government wants to wait for the results of a consultation due this summer before legislating.
Calls have risen across the opposition and within the governing Labour party for the UK to follow Australia, where under-16s have been barred from social media applications since December 10.
The amendment from opposition Conservative lawmaker John Nash passed with 261 votes to 150 in the House of Lords, co?sponsored by a Labour and a Liberal Democrat peer.
“Tonight, peers put our children’s future first,” Nash said. “This vote begins the process of stopping the catastrophic harm that social media is inflicting on a generation.”
Before the vote, Downing Street said the government would not accept the amendment, which now goes to the Labour-controlled lower House of Commons. More than 60 Labour MPs have urged Starmer to back a ban.
Public figures including actor Hugh Grant urged the government to back the proposal, saying parents alone cannot counter social media harms.
Some child-protection groups warn a ban would create a false sense of security.
A YouGov poll in December found 74 percent of Britons supported a ban. The Online Safety Act requires secure age?verification for harmful content.