The Bishop of Chelmsford received the following written answers on 23rd May 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the appropriate length of time before an asylum claim can be deemed inadmissible, given that current Home Office caseworker guidance states that “the inadmissibility process must not create a lengthy ‘limbo’ position, where a pending decision or delays in removal after a decision mean that a claimant cannot advance their asylum claim either in the UK or in a safe third country”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con, Home Office): The safe third country inadmissibility process does not specify a specific timescale for an inadmissibility decision to be made. The process provides flexibility to ensure that the relevant information can be gathered by Home Office staff to make the appropriate decision. We consider it is right that officials have a reasonable opportunity to carefully examine the evidence in a case to determine whether inadmissibility action is appropriate. Where it is considered appropriate that they also have the opportunity to approach relevant third countries and enter into discussions about the person’s removal before a decision is made.
Where a claimant is under consideration of the inadmissibility policy, they are issued a Notice of Intent informing them their claim is being considered under this policy, and providing them with an opportunity to put forward any reasons why their claim should not be declared inadmissible. ––If they are detained, they have 7 days, if they are non-detained, they have 14 days, and additional time can be requested if necessary.
The inadmissibility policy sets out that the process must not create a lengthy ‘limbo’ position, where a pending decision or delays in removal after a decision mean that a claimant cannot advance their asylum claim either in the UK or in a safe third country. If, taking into account all the circumstances, it is not possible to make an inadmissibility decision or effect removal following an inadmissibility decision within a reasonable period, inadmissibility action must be discontinued, and the person’s claim must be admitted to the asylum process for substantive consideration.
As a general guideline, it is expected that in most cases, a safe third country will agree to admit a person within 6 months of the claim being recorded, enabling removal soon after, subject to concluding legal challenges or other removal barriers. Therefore, we consider that there are adequate safeguards build into the policy to ensure that a claimant is not left in limbo.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government how many times the Asylum Lived Experience Advisory Panel met in (1) 2024, (2) 2023, and (3) 2022.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The Asylum Lived Experience Advisory Panel (ALEAP) was established in February 2023. The panel has met at least quarterly since this date.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government whether beginning the 28-day move-on period for a person with newly granted refugee status from the issuing of a biometric residence permit will be regularly reviewed as government policy.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Currently, the 28 day period begins from when a Biometric Residence Permit is issued. The longer-term position is under consideration.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government when they anticipate that the conditions stipulated by the special development order for the former RAF Wethersfield site will be met; and whether a work plan for the required improvements will be published.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Wethersfield is safe for asylum seekers, and we are working at pace to ensure we abide by the conditions in the Special Development Order.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government:
- how many women are currently being detained for removal to Rwanda.
- in which immigration removal centres the additional 2,200 detention spaces referred to in their press release of 1 May are located.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The Home Office currently operates seven immigration removal centres (IRCs) throughout the UK (six in England and one in Scotland); Harmondsworth and Colnbrook IRCs at Heathrow; Brook House and Tinsley House IRCs at Gatwick; Derwentside IRC in County Durham; Yarl’s Wood IRC in Bedfordshire and Dungavel House IRC in South Lanarkshire, Scotland.
As of 24 April, the Home Office has the capacity to detain around 2,200 people in IRCs, including those liable for removal to Rwanda.
Individuals who were previously present in a safe third country and entered the UK by a dangerous and unnecessary method are liable to be relocated to Rwanda. As this is an ongoing operational matter it would be inappropriate to provide a running commentary on individual cases or numbers.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to appoint an Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; and in what timeframe.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The process to recruit a new Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration follows the principles set out within the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments:
The competition opened on 21 February, and the closing date for applications was 2 April 2024. Our intention is to make the appointment as soon as possible, and an indicative timetable is available on the Public Appointments website:
Role details – Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration – Apply for a public appointment – GOV.UK (apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk)
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.