It was up to 9,352 by 18.4.25. Even accounting the 600 arrivals on Saturday, there have been 35% fewer crossings this year.

some useful context for those covering the Reform announcement today as well e.g. @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social

More than 600 migrants cross English Channel in single day On Saturday, 602 people arrived on nine boats, marking the second busiest day so far this year.

Yesterday, the BBC covered 600 people crossing the channel in small boats on Saturday, noting it was the 2nd highest in a day so far this year. What they'd didn't add was that even including the 600 people, crossings are down 35% compared with the same time last year.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

2025 also higher because of the grants following clearing up the IMA mess. Doubt it's that high this year. Might just get to 400k is the 2025 grants continued for the next 4 years, plus they add in appeal grants and initial decision backlog + appeal backlog.

Recent BBC articles highlight misconduct by a small number of unscrupulous advisers who charge thousands to fabricate asylum claims. This is fraud & must be stopped. But the coverage is selective, harmful & risks obscuring the wider reality of access to legal advice. 🧵

I know the true cost of 'proving' you're gay to seek asylum I felt that, if my sexuality wasn’t believed, I would be classified as someone gaming the system.

metro.co.uk/2026/04/15/a...

I think that was him quoting our analysis on how many reviews the HO could have to do in the first decade of the 2.5yrs leave/20yr settlement stuff taking effect

Parliamentlive.tv House of Lords

A pretty forensic taking apart of the Government’s reduction in refugee protection by Baroness Lister in the House of Lords. Now being followed by Baroness Teather, a former UK director of the Jesuit Refugee Service (and chair of APPG on refugees when an MP) parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/...

Hundreds of asylum seekers moved from hotels to army barracks, Home Office announces Refugee Council criticises Labour’s decision, saying military sites are unsuitable and ‘more expensive than hotels’ Hundreds of asylum seekers have been removed from government-funded hotels while others have been sent to live in army barracks, the Home Office has announced. Eleven “asylum hotels” in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been closed, as first reported by the Guardian, and more will close “in the coming weeks”. About 350 claimants have been moved to the Crowborough military camp in east Sussex, described by a spokesperson as “basic accommodation”. Continue reading...

Hundreds of asylum seekers moved from hotels to army barracks, Home Office announces

Ahead of her question on asylum policies and child poverty, Baroness Lister has written a piece for @politicshome.bsky.social criticising the Govt's reduction in the duration of refugee leave www.politicshome.com/opinion/arti...

The Lords debate March's changes to the immigration rules this afternoon, including the reduction in leave for refugees to 2.5yrs and the "visa breaks" for students and workers from certain countries. The Lords Scrutiny Committee raised serious concerns publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ld...

ICIBI Inspection Plan 2026-27 The Independent Chief Inspector has published his Inspection Plan for 2026-27.

The Independent Chief Inspector has published his Inspection Plan for 2026-27. The Inspection Plan includes completed inspection reports that are awaiting publication, inspections begun in 2025-26, and new inspections for 2026-27:

Will try a follow-up first, but good idea

Incredibly serious and under reported proposals - having effectively been hidden within the family returns consultation

Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

The Home Office is currently consulting on removing accommodation and financial support from families who have been refused asylum, even if they've got nowhere else to go. But they won't tell anyone how many people they think will be impacted questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-ques...

Following feedback from stakeholders, we’ve updated the timelines for our call for evidence.

The deadline for submitting new evidence has been extended to 13 May 2026.

For existing, previously published research, we encourage submissions by 14 April 2026, where possible.

I think where we differ is what constitutes abuse. I don’t think, for example, an Afghan woman unable to study under the Taliban who comes to study in the UK and then also seeks the protection of having refugee status has abused the system. It seems you would.

Someone can be both a student and a refugee - they are not mutually exclusive. And I’m not sure I would categorise a way for someone to reach the safety of the UK as a “loophole”.

Because the “abuse” of the visa system in the view of the government is that some of those who come to the UK on work and study visas then claim asylum at some point. The Home Office argues that these asylum claims are placing a strain on the asylum system (even though many will be successful)

In their response to the Lords secondary legislation scrutiny committee, the Home Office gave the strain on the system as the main justification for the pause and called it “proportionate”. Not clear that any reasonable consideration of the numbers and impact would result in it being proportionate.

By the Home Office’s own estimate, the pause will reduce asylum claims by around 1,400 over the next 18 months. More than 100,000 people claimed asylum in the UK last year. It’s a policy that has no operational benefit to the asylum system, while having a huge personal impact on those caught by it.

All four countries have high recognition rates - there was a 98% grant rate for Cameroonians claiming on the basis of sexual orientation in the most recent stats

open.substack.com/pub/thoughts...

Of course no one from *checks notes* Sudan or Afghanistan could be in genuine danger.

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Ctte has published it's report covering the immigration rules changes. They make a lot of good points about the lack of impact assessments and the piecemeal approach to changes to refugee leave/settlement publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ld...

Danish PM's party fails to secure majority in weakest showing since 1903 The party, which has been in power since 2019, gained the most votes but faces tough talks on forming a new government.

📉 The policy of the Danish Social Democrats to pursue a hardline immigration policy has backfired after shedding votes to the left and the right,

Food for thought for Labour?

I was looking back at the debates on the 1971 Act and I hadn’t realised before that when it was introduced there was no scrutiny mechanism at all, just that parliament had sight of the rules for their information

Yep, although one of the (many) weaknesses of s3(2) is that the changes are just those the Home Secretary sees fit to make, and the rules that were disapproved remain in place.

There are other ways for MPs and Peers to prevent/change the rules. There will almost certainly be an immigration bill in the next session. That primary legislation could be used to limit what the Home Secretary can do/has done on the immigration rules.

Labour MPs threaten vote to show opposition to Mahmood's migration plans Opponents are considering using parliamentary procedure to force a vote to highlight their concerns.

This BBC article on votes on settlement changes misses some important points. Firstly, the changes do require legislation in the form of changes to the immigration rules. Secondly, a vote is more than symbolic. And the third point is probably the most important….

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137 Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers...

And if you want to know a bit more about why MPs like Stella Creasy have to resort to Early Day Motions to try to force a debate on these changes, I discussed the problems with scrutiny of immigration rules on this week’s @hansardsociety.bsky.social podcast www.hansardsociety.org.uk/news/parliam...