Lilley under fire over benefits for asylum-seekers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Secretary of State for Social Security came under fresh fire in the High Court in a challenge to regulations on benefits for asylum- seekers, made under emergency legislation passed in July. Mr Justice Popplewell ruled that a full judicial review hearing of Peter Lilley's new rules should take place as a matter of urgency. Up to 10,000 asylum-seekers could be entitled to be treated as "urgent cases" if the application, by a woman member of a political group opposed to the Ethiopian government, succeeds.
The woman says she fled from Ethiopia after suffering beatings and rape by prison guards. The regulations purport to make the 1996 Act apply retrospectively. The July legislation followed a Court of Appeal ruling that Mr Lilley had exceeded his powers when introducing new rules refusing housing benefit, income support and other benefits to asylum-seekers who failed to make prompt applications on their arrival in Britain. Patricia Wynn Davies
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments