Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the speech entitled Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s statement on the plan to stop the boats, published by the Prime Minister’s office on 22 April 2024, what the evidential basis is for the statement that the judiciary have identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days to deal with challenges to the removal of asylum seekers from the UK under the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) provides for First-tier Tribunal judges to be deployed to sit in the Upper Tribunal to hear IMA appeals. As the Lord Chancellor set out in his Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2024: “The judiciary have identified relevant judges, which could provide over 5,000 additional sitting days. The decision on whether to deploy additional judges temporarily to the Upper Tribunal, including when they sit and the courtrooms they use, is for the independent judiciary and will be taken by the relevant leadership judges at the time and in the interests of justice”.

It is standard practice not to comment on discussions between Ministers and the judiciary. However, the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the judiciary in preparation for implementation of the Illegal Migration Act and I refer you to the Lord Chancellor’s Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2024, which addressed the topic (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-01-16/hcws188).

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with the (a) Lady Chief Justice and (b) Senior President of Tribunals on the deployment of judges to deal with cases specifically related to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) provides for First-tier Tribunal judges to be deployed to sit in the Upper Tribunal to hear IMA appeals. As the Lord Chancellor set out in his Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2024: “The judiciary have identified relevant judges, which could provide over 5,000 additional sitting days. The decision on whether to deploy additional judges temporarily to the Upper Tribunal, including when they sit and the courtrooms they use, is for the independent judiciary and will be taken by the relevant leadership judges at the time and in the interests of justice”.

It is standard practice not to comment on discussions between Ministers and the judiciary. However, the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the judiciary in preparation for implementation of the Illegal Migration Act and I refer you to the Lord Chancellor’s Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2024, which addressed the topic (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-01-16/hcws188).

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many asylum claimants, excluding foreign national offenders, have been subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of immigration bail since 1 January 2024.

Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)

The information requested is not available from published statistics.

The Home Office does not electronically monitor asylum claimants as a matter of course. However, Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 provides a discretion for the SSHD or the First Tier Tribunal to impose such a condition which may mean that a small number of individuals who have claimed asylum may be subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. In such instances, an individualised assessment of the claimant’s suitability for electronic monitoring would be undertaken either by the Home Office, the relevant Immigration Judge, or both.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information his Department holds on the number of asylum seekers that have (a) entered the Republic of Ireland by crossing the land border from Northern Ireland and (b) been returned to the UK from the Republic of Ireland at the request of the Irish Government in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)

In 2020, we agreed operational arrangements which allow for the return and readmission of asylum seekers where this is agreed by both participants. Ireland has not returned anyone to the UK under these arrangements.

The UK does not operate routine immigration controls on journeys from within the Common Travel Area, with no immigration checks being undertaken on the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border. We do not routinely collect data on asylum seekers entering Ireland.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there are (a) formal and (b) informal arrangements between the UK and Republic of Ireland governments on the (i) provision of biometric and other data on asylum seekers and (ii) removal of asylum seekers from the Republic of Ireland to the UK.

Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)

The Home Office has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Irish Department of Justice for information sharing to preserve and enhance the operation of the Common Travel Area. This enables data sharing about asylum seekers.

We have no legally binding agreement with Ireland on the return of asylum seekers. In 2020, we agreed operational arrangements which allow for the return and readmission of asylum seekers where this is agreed by both participants. Ireland has not returned anyone to the UK under these arrangements, and we have only returned one person.

Found: Gravesham ) Dame Andrea Jenkyns MP (Morley and Outwood ) Mr David Jones MP (Conservative, Clwyd West ) Stephen

Found: conclusion to a long -standing, principled and constitutionally and politically important campaign”.38 Stephen

Found: conclusion to a long -standing, principled and constitutionally and politically important campaign”.38 Stephen