Home News

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailRishi Sunak’s claim that the government has cleared the asylum backlog has been called “misleading” by a fact checking organisation. Full Fact, a charity that combats misinformation, reviewed the claim after a row broke out about the backog, with Labour accusing Mr Sunak of a “barefaced lie”. It comes after the statistics watchdog, the Office for Statistics Regulation, launched an investigation into Mr Sunak’s announcement. The prime minister had said that the pledge to clear all so-called legacy asylum claims – counted as those submitted before June 2022 – had been met. Official statistics released on Tuesday showed that 4,500 of these cases had still to be processed. Mr Sunak then went on to suggest that he had cleared the entire backlog, despite data showing that 98,599 claims were still waiting on a decision. He wrote on X, formely Twitter: “I said that this government would clear the backlog of asylum decisions by the end of 2023. That’s exactly what we’ve done.”The Home Office said Rishi Sunak’s commitment to clear the legacy asylum backlog ‘has been delivered’ Now Full Fact have decided that this statement was misleading. In their review, published on their website on Wednesday, they wrote: “This is misleading. The PM’s claim relates to a subsection of outstanding asylum cases called the ‘legacy backlog’, rather than the overall backlog of cases which still stands at almost 100,000. “Most ‘legacy backlog’ cases have been resolved but around 4,500 are still marked as awaiting an initial decision.”Reacting to Mr Sunak’s comments, Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said they were “just not true”, and shadow immigration minister Steven Kinnock accused him of a “barefaced lie” that was “an insult to the public’s intelligence”. Home secretary James Cleverly had also said that “every single” legacy asylum case had been processed, despite thousands remaining unresolved. He said that the government had “committed to processing all those applications” not completing them. He said it was “impossible” to know when they would be given decisions and said the cases were “complex”. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailThe Prime Minister has successfully defused a Tory revolt, following a crunch vote on his flagship migration policy.The government’s new Rwanda bill would order British judges and courts to ignore some sections of the UK Human Rights Act to allow for the deportation of asylum seekers to the African country.Under the plan, asylum seekers that arrive in Britain will be sent to Rwanda for processing where they could either be granted refugee status or allowed to stay.If not, they could apply to settle there on other grounds or seek asylum in another “safe third country”. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent there.There has been significant division on both sides of the Conservative Party over the bill, with the prime minister facing another battle with his own MPs within weeks after parliament backed his emergency legislation by 313 votes to 269.And he now faces an uphill struggle to pass the bill at its next hurdle after Tory rebels, many of whom abstained instead of voting it down, warned they could not support it without significant changes.It comes as Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker waded into the long-running debate, signing a letter, along with dozens of celebrities and high-profile figures, calling for a new asylum system that “reflects the will of the British people”.We want to know if you think it’s time the divisive immigration scheme was scrapped altogether? What would a new asylum system look like to you? If you want to share your opinion then add it in the comments and we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailPolice are investigating a post by a retired university professor calling on someone to “blow up” a Jewish Labour Movement meeting.The University of Bristol has stripped Harriet Bradley of her emeritus and honorary status, and it’s understood the University of West England has done the same.Prof Bradley, a former Labour councillor and sociology lecturer, has apologised “to all people who’ve been hurt” by the post on social media, which she later deleted.She said she deeply regretted writing the post “in a moment of anger”.The Metropolitan Police have recorded a “massive increase” in antisemitic hate crimes since the eruption of violence between Israel and Hamas militants.Avon and Somerset Police said they were investigating the post as “an incident of malicious communications”.It was in response to a meeting by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) next month, where speakers include shadow health secretary Wes Streeting.Ms Bradley quoted that post, adding: “Somebody blow up the venue!”The Campaign Against Antisemitism said it had reported the post to counterterrorism police.But the academic admitted it had been a mistake, telling LabourList: “I would like to apologise to anybody hurt or frightened by my tweet. It was a remark made as a joke but I can see now it was a terrible mistake in awful taste.“I am of Jewish heritage, had a Jewish partner for many years and many of my extended family are Jewish.“I feel great respect for the Jewish people but I deplore what Netanyahu and the Israeli Defence Force are doing in Gaza, killing and mutilating thousands of children and babies.”She said her “ill-thought joke” reflected her anger at the Labour Party’s position on Israel.“Of course I do not want to harm anyone…I repeat my apology which is sincere and hope you will make it clear that I wish no harm to British Jews.”Shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire said she was putting pressure on the University of Bristol to take action.The university said: “We are deeply dismayed by the inflammatory comment on social media from a former employee who has long retired and are taking appropriate action.”On Friday, the university added: “We can confirm that we have withdrawn the Emeritus and Honorary Status of retired employee Professor Harriet Bradley with immediate effect.”The University of West England said on Wednesday that it would investigate further.A spokesman for the Community Security Trust charity said: “It is utterly shocking that anyone would make a threat like this against Jewish people, at a time when anti-Jewish hate crime is at record levels.“It’s even worse that this comes from a former councillor and academic who ought to know better.” More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailAnyone who streams or watches live programmes in Britain must pay an annual TV licence — but a debate has been rumbling for some time as to whether the fee is good value for money any longer.For the past two years the BBC’s TV licence has been frozen at £159, with an agreement it would rise in line with inflationfrom April, and in the three years after that.On Thursday, the Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer confirmed the BBC licence fee will rise by £10.50 to £169.50 a year, The licence was expected to increase by 9% – which would have resulted in a hike of around £15 from April 2024.However, speaking in the Commons, Ms Frazer said the increase will instead be based on September’s consumer prices index (CPI) rate of inflation, which was 6.7%. This will mean an increase of £10.50 to £169.50 per year.The licence fee pays for BBC services including TV, radio, the BBC website, podcasts, iPlayer and apps. Its existence is guaranteed until the end of 2027 at least by the BBC’s royal charter, which sets out its funding and purpose.With the debate around the TV licence thrust back into the limelight, we want to know if you think the fee represents good value for money at £169.50 a year? Is the hike something you’re happy to pay for to maintain the BBC’s output?Or are you keen to see the TV licence scrapped altogether? Would you be happy to see ads on the broadcaster’s TV and radio channels if it meant the fee was axed?If you want to share your opinion then add it in the comments and we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below or by clicking here. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailAnyone who streams or watches live programmes in Britain must pay an annual TV licence — but a debate has been rumbling for some time as to whether the fee is good value for money any longer.For the past two years the BBC’s TV licence has been frozen at £159, with an agreement it would rise in line with inflationfrom April, and in the three years after that.But on Monday morning culture secretary Lucy Frazer effectively confirmed the corporation will have to cope with a below-inflation rise amid reports Rishi Sunak wants to block the hike in the annual charge.A rise in the annual fee in line with inflation would amount to around £15, bumping the tax to £173.30. However, Ms Frazer said she was concerned this would be “high” while the cost of living crisis is ongoing.Her comments came after the prime minsister told reporters that the BBC “should be realistic about what it can expect people to pay at a time like this”.The licence fee pays for BBC services including TV, radio, the BBC website, podcasts, iPlayer and apps. Its existence is guaranteed until the end of 2027 at least by the BBC’s royal charter, which sets out its funding and purpose.With the debate around the TV licence thrust back into the limelight, we want to know if you think the fee represents good value for money at £159 a year? Is a hike in line with inflation something you would be willing to pay for to maintain the BBC’s output?Or are you keen to see the TV licence scrapped altogether? Would you be happy to see ads on the broadcaster’s TV and radio channels if it meant the fee was axed?If you want to share your opinion then add it in the comments and we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email Watch as Michael Gove gives evidence to the Covid inquiry on Tuesday, 28 November. The housing secretary, who was Duchy of Lancaster during the first 18 months of the pandemic, previously told the […] More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email The average family could be expected to pay £120 more a year in council tax despite Jeremy Hunt’s plans to cut inheritance tax in half for the UK’s richest households, according to reports. […] More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email Rishi Sunak’s government has been condemned over its failure to bring thousands of Afghans who worked with British forces to safety in the UK years despite repeated promises to do so. Labour’s shadow […] More