More than 100,000 people are still waiting an asylum decision despite Labour's vow to 'clear the backlog' (and a third are still in hotels) as new data reveals UK's asylum 'hotspots'
More than 100,000 asylum seekers in Britain are still awaiting an initial decision - despite Labour's promise to 'clear the backlog' of cases.
Newly-published Home Office figures showed, at the end of March this year, there were 78,745 cases (relating to 109,536 people) awaiting an initial decision.
The data also revealed that 58 per cent of cases that were awaiting an initial decision had been doing so for more than six months.
And nearly one-third (31 per cent) of total cases had been awaiting an initial decision for more than a year.
Ahead of last July's general election, Labour promised to 'turn the page' and 'restore order' to the asylum system so that it 'operates swiftly, firmly and fairly'.
Party leader Sir Keir Starmer also vowed to 'end asylum hotels' to save UK taxpayers' billions of pounds.
The latest figures showed, at the end of March, nearly one-third (30 per cent) of those in receipt of asylum support - some 32,345 people - were in hotels.
The Home Office said this was 15 per cent lower than at the end of 2024, and 42 per cent lower than a peak of 56,042 people in hotel accommodation in September 2023.
More than 100,000 asylum seekers in Britain are still awaiting an initial decision - despite Labour's promise to 'clear the backlog' of cases
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
The data also revealed the geographic dispersal of asylum seekers across Britain.
The majority of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office were located in England (89 per cent).
The North West had 19 per cent of the total supported population (20,416 people), which was slightly more than London (19,960 people).
The North East and North West supported the largest number of asylum seekers as a proportion of their overall population (2,758 and 2,686 people per million residents, respectively).
Of individual local authorities, Glasgow City was supporting the highest number of asylum seekers (4,152 people).
This was followed by Hillingdon (2,946), Birmingham (2,504), Liverpool (2,385) and Hounslow (2,097).
The Home Office said the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision at the end of March this year was 13 per cent fewer than at the end of December 2024.
This was also down 41 per cent from the peak of 134,046 cases in June 2023.
But it remains higher than in the period from 2010 to 2018, when the number of cases awaiting a decision grew from around 6,000 to 27,000.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Harlow housing block dubbed 'open prison' to be redeveloped
Councillors have unanimously backed their authority buying a 14-storey building that was controversially converted from offices into temporary leader of Harlow Council in Essex, Dan Swords, said Terminus House had been "a massive postcard image of the decline of Harlow" and said the authority would redevelop the town centre leader, Labour's James Griggs, said he supported the plans, but his primary concern was what would happen to the 150 to 200 people living council said it would take ownership once the current owner has re-housed the residents. The owner, Caridon, said the building had helped hundreds of people avoid homelessness. 'An open prison' Glen Lane, 65, has lived in the tower block in one room with an en-suite since 2018. He described conditions as "the worst place I have ever lived in", saying it "feels like an open prison, probably worse than an open prison".Mr Lane was homeless and said he struggled to get on the local council housing list."It's depressing. It's got a reputation this property. It's embarrassing when I put my address down," he said."I feel quite ashamed about it as I haven't always lived like this. I used to have my own property and job but I lost all that." His room is only a few square metres in size. At the end of his double bed, the kitchen the last eight months he said the property had been plagued with insects. He had used insect powder but they were still "climbing on me at night when I'm sleeping". Crime rose by 20% in the area around Terminus House after it was turned into accommodation in 2018, according to police figures.A BBC East and Panorama documentary highlighted the cramped conditions. In 2021, the government imposed a minimum size of 37 sq m (398 sq ft) on new office to flat conversions. 'Housed out of Harlow' Harlow Council has become the largest landowner in the town centre, buying up buildings to regenerate them into new housing, leisure and retail authority's latest decision to buy Terminus House has brought uncertainty about the building's future. Conservative leader Dan Swords said plans were being finalised on whether it would be demolished or he said in any scenario it would look "completely different from that which it does now"."The existing tenants, which have largely nearly all come through temporary accommodation from London boroughs, will be housed outside of Harlow," he said. Labour's James Griggs argued that "sending them back somewhere else seems completely wrong".He told the BBC that some people had been living there for years. "There are families who now consider themselves Harlow families. They have children in Harlow schools, the parents are working in the town."The redeveloped site would likely include housing. The local authority has not disclosed how much it was paying for Batrick, a charity organiser who supports local families, said many people living in Terminus House would be "reeling at the news that their homes will be going"."There is a real concern about the human element of this," she said. Caridon, the company that owns Terminus House, said in a statement the building met "a pressing need for temporary accommodation at a time of limited options". "The building has since supported hundreds of individuals and families in avoiding homelessness and finding stability during difficult periods," it at his flat, Mr Lane welcomed Harlow Council's plans."I'm glad they are doing it. It definitely needs upgrading," he where he and others will end up living is not currently known. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Belfast City Hall: What do people think of new plans to charge £4 for exhibition?
Should people be charged to tour a Belfast City Hall exhibition?On Monday, People Before Profit councillor Michael Collins proposed to drop Belfast City Council's plan to charge people £4 to visit the venue's ground floor exhibition, which is usually a vote TUV councillor Ron McDowell was the only politician to second the proposal while the other parties voted against scrapping plans for the new News NI went along to find out what tourists and locals thought about being charged £4 for self-guided tours in the future. What are people being charged for? In May, Belfast City Council agreed plans to charge people a £4 entrance fee to the city hall ground floor exhibition as part of its 'City Hall Income Generation Project'.It was decided that free tours should take place through community visits organised by councillors and that under 18s would be exempt from the new members of the public can turn up for a walk-in booking or book exhibition tickets for up to nine people by email at no cost. Collins said plans to raise revenue by increasing the prices of services was "worrying"."An exhibition that really was free, is now going to be charged. Where does this end? Will we start charging people to access the building itself?", he who seconded the proposal said that he felt Collins had a point, "considering this building is owned by the citizens of Belfast" that it would be charging them for something they "already own". The DUP, SDLP, UUP, Green Party, Sinn Féin, Alliance Party and one Independent councillor voted against the proposal to scrap the new News NI contacted the main parties. A spokesperson for the DUP group on Belfast City Council said that they have a "strategic plan" to deliver more benefit to the ratepayers of the city. "At present tourists to the city, mainly large groups from cruise ships, are accessing the exhibition for free and costs for staffing etc are being absorbed by ratepayers."The £4 charge means visitors can pay £10 to access both the exhibition and a tour of city hall."Provision has been made for residents of the city to still access these for free through civic dignitaries or councillors." What's free and what's not? It is currently free to visit the City Hall visitor exhibition. The exhibition opened in 2017 and is found on the east wing of the ground floor. If offers a self-guided journey from Belfast's past to present across six themed zones, stretching through 16 city hall offers a separate 45 minute guided tour for visitors which costs £6 for adults and is free for tour offers glimpses into areas not usually accessible to the public like the council chamber and some of the upstairs public has full access the toilets, coffee shop, gift shop and stained windows along the north west and north east corridors from the main reception. There are no plans to change this. What do members of the public think? Geraldine and Martin O'Hare, originally from Belfast, came from Melbourne to visit O'Hares have lost neither their accent nor their nostalgia for Belfast."If you come to Belfast, you have to see the City Hall. For Australians or anyone, the City Hall is Belfast. Not the docks. Not the parks."That's what it's all about", Martin told BBC News later, he was reunited with his aunt outside the iconic building that he said is a central part of Belfast for tourists and locals alike. Geraldine told BBC News NI that everything in the city hall should be free for those who live in Northern Ireland, instead of the free tours having to be booked through a councillor."A public building should be available for the public, the people of Northern Ireland and Belfast especially.""It's there for the public to use and even a bonus for the visitors of Belfast", she added. Visiting Belfast from Copenhagen, Henrick thought that £4 "isn't too bad". Fresh from doing the tour, he said it was a "great experience" where you can "read a lot about the history of Belfast and Northern Ireland"."I think you can make tourists pay for it and then the members of the city or community should be free of charge. That's a way you can do it", he added. Sahid Zaman and Zerin Salma weren't as enthusiastic about paying for the tour."It's very good but not worth the money. I think it should be open to all people so they don't need to pay that", Sahid message for councillors was clear: "I think it should be free – keep it as it is". "This is our own history so you shouldn't pay", Zerin added. Fionnuala McCarten and Ted Workman were visiting the city hall to register the birth of their four-week-old daughter Fiadh. Asked if they would pay for the exhibition, Fionnuala said if she was tourist she would but if you live here, "there's no point".Ted agreed: "As someone who lives here I wouldn't pay £4 but maybe as a tourist I actually would because if I was visiting a different country I probably would to go in and check out the history and stuff". Stockport Trefoil members Eva, Ashley and Jean are in Northern Ireland for the Trefoil national meeting in Belfast on Saturday. They popped into the exhibition before heading over to the the Titanic museum. Jean told BBC News NI that in Manchester "a lot of the tours you have to pay but they are free to local residents so maybe that is the way to go".Eva thinks that £4 is a reasonable amount for visitors but said because it was free, it was "more of a tempting offer". She said she felt "rates" that local people pay mean it should be free for them. No date has been set yet for the charges to come into action and the council has already decided they will be reviewed after one year.
The Herald Scotland
41 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
