Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Asylum Application Backlog

Monday 3 July 2023 · 6 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Home Office statistics show a 35% increase in asylum decisions since last year.
  • The number of decision makers is set to quadruple to 2,500 by September.
  • The Labour party is criticized for not understanding the need to prevent asylum seekers from arriving.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Kevin Brennan Lab
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The MP asked about recent progress in reducing the backlog of asylum applications.

Question

What recent progress her Department has made on reducing the backlog of asylum applications?

Answer from Robert Jenrick

We are making good progress, and the latest Home Office statistics show that asylum decisions are up, with a 35% increase since last year in the number made. Productivity has increased, and we are on track to have 2,500 decision makers by September, which represents a quadrupling of the number of case workers.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not specify if the 35% increase was in relation to backlog reduction or overall decisions made

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Chi Onwurah Lab Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The MP asked about refugees waiting for asylum decisions in Newcastle, noting the Home Office's lack of tracking on this.

Question

Like many Members from all parties, I am constantly contacted by refugees who are desperate to know what is happening to their asylum claim after years of waiting, so I asked the Home Office how many refugees in Newcastle had been waiting for one, two, three, four and five years. The answer came back that the Home Office does not know—it does not even record the data. Instead of indulging in unworkable, unethical, illegal and unaffordable flights of Rwandan fantasy, why does the Home Secretary not focus on her day job and fix the asylum backlog?

Answer from Robert Jenrick

As I just said, we are making good progress on reducing the asylum backlog. Important though the reducing the backlog is, however, it cannot be the totality of a plan. This is the point that the Labour party does not seem to understand: we have to stop the boats coming in the first place. That is the only sustainable way to tackle the issue. Even if we grant our way out of this problem, as the shadow Home Secretary seems to propose, the pressures on the state still remain; they are simply transferred to local authorities and the benefits system, and the British taxpayer continues to pick up the bill.

Not addressed: Did not address the data tracking issue in Newcastle or why focus is on other initiatives instead of asylum backlog

How: Changing Subject To Stopping Boats

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Kevin Brennan Lab
Immigration Asylum & Refugees
Context

The MP noted a reduction in the number of decision makers between January and May this year, which affected local solicitors' ability to provide Legal Aid services.

Question

The Minister has an interesting definition of being “on track”; did the number of decision makers not fall between January and May this year, from 1,333 to 1,280? A constituent recently passed on to me a letter from a firm of local solicitors that said: 'All possible avenues have been considered to avoid this situation but regrettably, the Home Office's long term failure to progress asylum claims, and current Government immigration policy, has made it financially unsustainable for these solicitors “to continue Legally Aided work.” How does it help us as MPs on both sides of the House in our constituency offices, and how does it help with the backlog that the Home Office says it wants to reduce, to make sure that people do not have the legal representation they need to unblock the system and allow progress in asylum cases?

Answer from Robert Jenrick

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem with our asylum system is not a lack of lawyers; there are plenty of legal representatives around. We have had strong overall progress on the backlog, and I am pleased to say that the early data that I have received suggests that last week saw the best performance in four years.

Not addressed: Did not address why reducing decision makers affects legal representation for asylum seekers or if it helps with reducing the backlog.

How: Changing Subject To Overall Progress

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Tim Loughton Con
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The MP questioned if the government would clear the asylum backlog by the end of the year without resorting to a blanket amnesty.

Question

I know how seriously the Minister takes dealing with the legacy backlog, but, as the Home Secretary showed at the recent Home Affairs Committee, in order to deal with that backlog in the timeframe that the Government have set themselves it would require at least a quadrupling of the number of cases being dealt with as from 1 June. Even with the extra 500 staff appointed at Stoke, that will be challenging. Will the Minister give me an assurance that, if we have not managed to clear the backlog before the end of the year, it will not be done by a blanket amnesty?

Answer from Robert Jenrick

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I explicitly chose not to pursue the blanket amnesty approach that the previous Labour Government pursued. Instead, we put in the hard yards to improve productivity by streamlining processes, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, ensuring that, where appropriate, interviews were conducted in a timely fashion, and recruiting more decision makers. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appeared before the Committee, I am pleased to say that the data coming out of our caseworking team is very strong. We are seeing significant progress. As I just said, early indication suggests that last week was the best for over four years.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not give a clear assurance about avoiding blanket amnesty if backlog clearance goal is missed.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 Edward Leigh Con Gainsborough
Immigration Migrants & Borders
Context

The MP questioned the government's approach to dealing with successful asylum applications and suggested offshore detention as a solution.

Question

I am a bit mystified. Given that 95% of these applications are successful, is it not the case that, if we speed up the process and make it easier and easier, more and more people will come? Is not the only solution to detain people and to deport them—offshore them? Those who suggest anything else are living in cloud cuckoo land and every single county will face what we face in Lincolnshire with thousands of illegal migrants having to be housed in unsuitable places. Let us have an answer for once.

Answer from Robert Jenrick

The approach that the Home Secretary and I have taken has been both to ensure that, where there are high grant rate nationalities, cases are pursued swiftly, and where there are low grant rate nationalities, such as Albanians—individuals from a safe European country—who can and should be returned as quickly as possible, we do just that. At this point last year, 30% of those arriving on small boats were coming from Albania; today, it is less than 2%. That arrangement is clearly making good progress. None the less, my right hon. Friend makes an important point: those who suggest that we can simply grant our way out of this problem are, I am afraid, hopelessly naive. The idea that the individuals coming across on small boats will, in most cases, make a significant net contribution to our economy is wrong. The costs to the taxpayer are very significant. The ongoing costs of education, access to welfare and community cohesion are very significant, which is why we need to stop the boats in the first place.

Not addressed: Did not address offshore detention policies directly or explain successful application rates fully.

How: Changing Subject To Costs Of Individuals Coming Over

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q6 Stephen Kinnock Lab Aberafan Maesteg
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The UK's asylum system is under scrutiny due to court rulings questioning the viability of the Rwanda plan, with a Court of Appeal ruling indicating that Rwanda can process only 100 claims per year.

Question

The Government's destruction of their own asylum system can best be described as an act of arson and their plans to fix it are utterly farcical. They have sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda. They sent the Prime Minister on a victory lap in Dover, apparently failing to notice that the weather improves over the summer and the boat numbers increase. And they were in such a flap about losing votes on their bigger backlog Bill that they resorted to dragging Lord Lebedev of Siberia into the Division Lobby. Now the Court of Appeal ruling has revealed that Rwanda is able to process only 100 claims per year—around 0.3% of those who arrived on small boats last year. Can the Minister tell me what he is planning to do with the remaining 99.7%, and does he therefore agree that the prospect of the Rwanda plan actually deterring any migrant from crossing the channel is close to zero?

Answer from Robert Jenrick

I used to say that the Labour party does not have a plan, but the truth is that it does have a plan, but it is a plan that would make things significantly worse. It is a plan that would ensure more granting of cases; more safe and legal routes, so even more individuals would come here; more hotels; and more cost to the British taxpayer.

How: Attacking Labour'S Plans, Highlighting Hypocrisy In Welsh Labour

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)