Downing Street has insisted that the prime minister has achieved his target of clearing the legacy backlog of asylum claims, despite the government’s own data showing that 4,537 remain.
Rishi Sunak pledged in December 2022 that he would “abolish” the legacy backlog of asylum claims made before 28 June of that year, with the Home Office being given the target of the end of 2023.
On Monday, the department said the pledge had been “delivered”, having processed more than 112,000 asylum claims overall in 2023.
There were more than 92,000 asylum claims made before 28 June 2022 requiring a decision, but 4,537 remain, according to the government’s official data.
Analysis: Sunak’s asylum backlog claim isn’t true – according to the government’s own statistics
It seems the government has shot itself in the foot by misleadingly focusing on a specific promise made by the PM which hasn’t quite been met.
Speaking to journalists this morning, the prime minister’s spokesperson said the legacy backlog of asylum claims has, in fact, been cleared as promised because all cases have been reviewed, and the remaining ones simply “require additional work”.
The spokesperson said: “We committed to clearing the backlog, that is what the government has done. We are being very transparent about what that entails.
“We have processed all of those cases and indeed gone further than the original commitment. We’re up to 112,000 decisions made overall.
“As a result of that process, there are a small minority of cases which are complex and which, because of our rigorous standards, require further work.
“But nonetheless, it is a significant piece of work by Home Office officials to process such huge numbers in a short period of time while retaining our rigorous safety standard.”
Advertisement
The government has said that the remaining 4,537 more complex cases typically involve “asylum seekers presenting as children – where age verification is taking place; those with serious medical issues; or those with suspected past convictions, where checks may reveal criminality that would bar asylum”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
Home Secretary discusses government’s work to process asylum claims
However, the CEO of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, said it is “misleading for the government to claim that the legacy backlog has been cleared as there are thousands still waiting for a decision”.
And Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper labelled the claim that the backlog has been cleared “totally false”.
She told broadcasters: “They made a whole series of promises about clearing the asylum backlog and they haven’t delivered them.
“Instead, the asylum backlog is still nearly 100,000 cases, and we’ve still got thousands of people, record numbers of people in asylum hotels. So, the government’s just failing on all counts.”
The prime minister’s spokesperson was also asked about an apparent suggestion from Home Secretary James Cleverly on LBC radio this morning that the government’s goal is to stop small boat crossings entirely in 2024.
Downing Street said they are “not going to set out a deadline”, but said the Rwanda bill – that is due to return to the Commons “this month” – is a “key part” of stopping small boat crossings.
Mr Cleverly did not make the suggestion that boats would be stopped this year elsewhere, and a source close to him said: “Tackling illegal migration is by virtue of what it is, a product of criminal people smuggling gangs, should always be a mission to zero, and as quickly as possible.
“We’ll do what it takes, using a whole range of tactics to get to zero to break the business model of these ruthless smugglers who don’t care if people live or die, just as long as they pay.”
Up until today, there had been fears for months that the prime minister’s target would not be achieved, and in an appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee in December, the prime minister was unable to say when the remaining overall backlog of asylum claims would be cleared.
In February last year, the Home Office said thousands of asylum seekers would be sent questionnaires which could be used to speed up a decision on their claims, and about 12,000 people from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Libya and Yemen, who had applied for asylum in the UK and were waiting for a decision, were understood to be eligible under the policy.
In June, the National Audit Office (NAO) said efforts to clear the backlog needed to significantly increase to clear the backlog and questioned whether the plans were sustainable.
The spending watchdog also estimated £3.6bn was spent on asylum support in 2022-23, which amounted to almost double the previous year.
More caseworkers had been tasked with processing applications, which the Home Office has previously said was “tripling productivity to ensure more illegal migrants are returned to their country of origin, quicker”.
But the department’s top civil servant, Sir Matthew Rycroft, revealed in a letter to MPs that just 1,182 migrants who had crossed the Channel had been returned to their home country since 2020, out of a total of more than 111,800 who arrived in that time period.
The majority of those returned were from Albania, with whom the UK has a returns agreement.
Labour MPs who are opposed to legalising assisted dying believe the momentum is swinging behind their side of the campaign, Sky News has learnt.
MPs are currently weighing up whether to back a change in the law that would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
At a meeting in parliament on Wednesday, Sky News understands Labour MPs on the opposing side of the argument agreed that those who were undecided on the bill were leaning towards voting against it.
One Labour backbencher involved in the whipping operation for the no camp told Sky News: “The undecideds are breaking to us, we feel.”
The source said that many of those who were undecided were new MPs who had expressed concerns that not enough time had been given to debate the bill.
“They feel they are too new to be asked to do something as substantive as this,” they said.
Issues that were being brought up as potential blocks to voting for the legislation include that doctors would be able to suggest assisted dying to an ill patient, they said.
The source added: “We were elected to sort the NHS out rather than assisted dying.
Advertisement
“And there is no going back on this – if any doubt, you should vote it out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, is due to be debated on 29 November, when MPs will be given a “free vote” and allowed to vote with their conscience as opposed to along party lines.
In a recent letter to ministers, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the prime minister had decided to “set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “remain neutral” on its passage and the matter of assisted dying.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life or pressuring them to take life-ending medicine.
She has also argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
However, several cabinet ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
The health secretary warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services – and that there could be “trade-offs” elsewhere.
Sky News understands Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” by Mr Streeting’s comments about the bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
Tory MP: ‘Impossible’ for assisted dying bill to be safe
And another Labour MP who is voting for the legislation told Sky News they believed Mr Streeting had “overstepped the mark”.
“I think it’s a bit of a false exercise,” they said.
“It’s definitely going to raise eyebrows – it’s one thing to sound the alarm but he is purposefully helping the other side.”
The MP said that while it did feel “the momentum is moving away from us, a lot of it will come down to the debate and argument in the chamber”.
“Some of the scaremongering tactics might backfire,” they added.
“It’s still all to play for but it’s undoubtedly true the other side seems to be making headway at the moment.”
A source close to Mr Streeting told Sky News: “Wes has approached this issue in a genuine and considerate way, setting out his own view while respecting others’ views.”
As a private member’s bill that has been put down by a backbencher rather than a government minister, the legislation will not receive as much time for consideration as a government bill – but proponents say it can always be amended and voted down at later stages.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned whether enough time had been set aside to debate the bill and urged Sir Keir Starmer to allow two days, or 16 hours, of “protected time” to “examine and debate” the legislation before the vote.
Sir Keir replied: “I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it but it is an important issue.”
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has ordered his department to carry out a review of the costs of potentially changing the law to legalise assisted dying.
It comes as MPs weigh up whether to vote for a change in the law when given the opportunity to do so later this month.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
More on Assisted Dying
Related Topics:
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The Labour MP has argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:38
MP discusses End of Life Bill
However, several cabinet ministers – including Mr Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
Announcing the review, Mr Streeting said: “Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward, because I’m very clear that regardless of my own personal position or my own vote, my department and the whole government will respect the will of parliament if people vote for assisted dying.”
Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” with Mr Streeting’s comments – telling The House magazine the health secretary’s comments “suggest he hasn’t read the bill”.
While the health secretary has warned of the potential cost downsides for the NHS, his critics have pointed out there may be potential savings to be made if patients need less care because they choose to end their own lives – something Mr Streeting branded a “chilling slippery slope argument”.
“I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money – whether that’s relatives or the NHS,” he said.
“And I think that’s one of the issues that MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
‘Impossible’ for assisted bill to be safe
“But this is a free vote – the government’s position is neutral.”
Speaking to reporters after delivering a speech to the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Mr Streeting said there were “choices and trade-offs” and that “any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities”.
“That doesn’t mean people should vote against it on that basis,” he said.
“People need to weigh up this choice in the way that we’re weighing up all these other choices at the moment.”
MPs will debate and vote on Ms Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015.
The government has given MPs a “free vote” on the issue, meaning they will be able to vote according to their conscience and without the pressure to conform to party lines.