30 October 2026
The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev'd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, spoke in three House of Lords debates during the week beginning 26 October
Tuesday 27 October - Speech on changes in immigration rules
On Tuesday 27 October, Bishop Guli spoke about changes in immigration rules and in particular rasied concerns about the Government's new Single Protection Interview process.
Bishop Guli's speech was part of a debate on a motion tabled by Baroness Lister of Burtersett.
-
Read a transcript of Bishop Guli's speech
"I’d like to begin by acknowledging the support I’ve received, as one of their Principals, from RAMP; and to thank Baroness Lister for creating this important opportunity to take note and discuss the Government's new Single Protection Interview process - introduced through the Statement of Changes to the immigration Rules.
I acknowledge procedural changes will often need to be facilitated through secondary legislation but the nature of the changes before us raise substantial questions which I am pleased can now be explored with Ministers in this House.
Organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture have argued that the changes represent a substantial shift in procedure as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted, and therefore it seems appropriate that time is allocated for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
This is particularly pertinent if the Government wishes, at a future date, to expand the use of a single protection interview. Can the Minister provide reassurance, that if that were to happen, there will be a further opportunity to discuss the merits of such an approach and consider the necessary safeguards that might be required?
The Government’s objective to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of our asylum system is entirely legitimate and welcome but we must distinguish carefully between administrative efficiency and justice - speed must not come at the expense of fairness.
Are the Government confident the new process will be able reliably to distinguish an unfounded claim from a genuine one that hasn’t yet been fully understood, and where additional information may be required? The purpose of an asylum system is, of course, not simply to process claims, but to identify people who genuinely need protection.
The Scrutiny Committee’s key concern is pertinent here: if I’m right in my understanding that the Government has confirmed that applicants will retain the right to submit further information, why then remove the Rules’ explicit guarantee of that right?
The SPI relies on the Home Office identifying appropriate cases before vulnerability, trafficking indicators, trauma, sexual orientation or safeguarding concerns have been fully explored. But as the Government know, evidence consistently shows that many survivors of torture, trafficking and other forms of serious harm do not disclose these experiences at the earliest stage of the asylum process.
Even if these characteristics are identified there will presumably need to be an assessment of whether the safeguarding or vulnerability indicator meets a threshold to qualify for re-routing out of the single process and back into the standard asylum process.
Can the Minister provide further information on how suitability decisions will be made and how applicants can challenge inclusion in the process?
The Home Office recognise that survivors of torture, trafficking and those from the LGBTQI+ community often disclose relevant experiences only after trust has been built. Trauma, shame, fear, exhaustion, unfamiliarity with the asylum process and language barriers can make it difficult to disclose experiences coherently at the first interview and the most vulnerable may need specialist support to fully disclose evidence.
An incomplete first account should not automatically be mistaken for a dishonest or unfounded claim. Can the Government offer reassurance that the new process will not lead to decision-makers reaching premature conclusions before the relevant evidence has been assembled? Does the Minister envisage that identified survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious trauma will be excluded from the SPI process?
The Home Office acknowledges that interviews are often the most important evidence gathering opportunity. Curtailing that process for this vulnerable cohort risks unfair outcomes.
It is also important to remember that even if a country is generally safe, an individual may face persecution because of their particular circumstances. The assessment must therefore remain individual, not presumptive.
I expect not every asylum case will require two interviews, but it is important to remember, that an unjust refusal – made potentially more likely through the loss of a substantive interview – is not merely an administrative error. It might expose someone to persecution or serious harm. It could also lead to costly litigation and further delays, undermining the very efficiency the policy is seeking.
The risk of refoulement is a serious potential consequence. I am not suggesting that every SPI decision may be unlawful but I am urging the Government to commit to further parliamentary scrutiny, and to consultation with expert stakeholders and publication of evaluation data ahead of removing the procedural safeguard of an additional interview from other groups and for other purposes.
The Government is right to want to resolve clearly unfounded claims quickly, to reduce delays and avoid keeping people in prolonged uncertainty. The policy guidance does allow for further investigation and interviews where necessary which is welcome. The issue is whether, in practice, those safeguards will work consistently.
I would therefore ask the Minister, whether interviewers will be trained to recognise trauma, vulnerabilities and inconsistencies that may have legitimate explanations? Also, will there be a clearly applied process for transferring a case to the usual process? I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer all the questions I’ve asked today but I would be grateful if he could commit to write.
My Lords, the measure of an asylum system is not simply how quickly it can refuse a claim, but how reliably it can recognise a person who genuinely needs protection. A fair system must be capable of refusing unfounded claims, but it must also be capable of recognising when a person's right to asylum is evidence based, even when they struggle to explain it at first or provide corroborating information.
The questions I’ve asked are in an effort to understand whether the new process has sufficient safeguards to distinguish effectively between the two. Where the consequences of error may be persecution, torture or even the loss of life, the burden of getting that distinction right is profound.
I therefore hope the Government will take seriously the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, explain the removal of the express safeguard for further evidence, and commit to transparent monitoring of the new process."
Thursday 29 October - Speech on the impact of mediation and conflict prevention globally, and the role of the United Kingdom in peacebuilding
On Thursday 29 October, Bishop Guli spoke in a debate following a motion moved by Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale on the impact of mediation and conflict prevention globally, and the role of the United Kingdom in peacebuilding.
Bishop Guli's speech can be watched below.
The full debate can be watched here.
-
Read a transcript of Bishop Guli's speech
"I’m grateful to the Noble Lord for securing this timely debate though I confess to speak with some trepidation given the considerable expertise in this Chamber.
But, as a refugee who arrived in this country from Iran as a young girl because of political violence and religious persecution, and as someone who’s stayed abreast of developments in Iran and across the wider Middle East, this is a subject close to my heart.
I’ve spoken previously on why I think the joint US-Israel attack on Iran in February was an act of strategic folly, the consequences of which we continue to live with. The prospect of a renewed assault on Iran, soon after the midterm elections in America and recent elections in Israel fills me with dread and illustrates all too well that our collective ability to mediate and prevent conflict is diminishing.
While our assessments of the 1945 global order as broken, bruised, or in the process of being bolstered may diverge, surely those who care about human flourishing and the conditions that support it cannot be content with the current era of disorder and un-peace.
From a faith perspective, I find this state of affairs deeply troubling. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians (14:33) that God is not a God of disorder, tumult, or dissension, but of peace, order, harmony, and shalom.
Some will argue that if you want peace you must prepare for war. That logic is evident in last year’s Strategic Defence Review and in subsequent conversations about how we fund Britain’s military commitments going forward.
I don’t deny the utility of military deterrence, and I’m immensely grateful and indebted to our armed forces who risk their lives to protect us. At the same time, I fear the practice of some countries in recent years suggests we are now moving towards a new formulation all together, namely that if you want peace, you must first wage war.
My Lords, that is a dangerous path to tread. It invites a new global arms race, renewed wars of conquest, shrinking trade and prosperity, and the collapse of the cooperation needed to confront shared global threats.
It is a dystopian path that threatens both our God given human dignity and the very integrity of God’s creation.
I worry that both the preparation for war and the act of war itself become our principal ways of imagining the road to peace.
We need, as the Lutheran Archbishop of Estonia has suggested, to take an alternative pathway namely: if you want peace, prepare for peace and invest in the instruments necessary to uphold it.
The 2025 Strategic Defence Review was necessary, but where is the Strategic Peacebuilding Review to complement it?
At a time of heightened insecurity, we need a focused assessment of whether the UK has the policies, institutions, capabilities and partnerships needed to prevent violent conflict and strengthen the conditions for sustainable peace.
At a time when considerable attention is rightly being given to defence, deterrence and national resilience, we also need to examine the other side of the security equation: how Britain prevents conflict, addresses the conditions in which violence and instability develop, strengthens social cohesion and supports peace before, during and after crises?
A Strategic Peace Keeping Review could bring together the domestic and international dimensions of peacebuilding and consider the contribution of government, civil society, faith communities, business and international partners.
This is not to belittle steps that have been taken in recent years.
The creation of a 16 person Peace Process and Mediation Team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is a welcome step. But, how might this capability be strengthened and embedded across government, rather than remaining primarily an FCDO-led operational function?
Rather than undertaking such a Strategic Peace Review and investing in peace building mechanisms, we seem intent on financing our rearmament by salami slicing the development budget and in so doing diminishing our ability to tackle the drivers of conflict in many parts of the world.
This is a false economy and feels self-defeating.
Instead, we should invest in peacebuilding with fresh funding and a more joined-up national conversation than we’ve had to date.
This is an agenda the Church takes seriously. The commitment to peace building is part of our very DNA. We’re willing to work together with Government, and others in creating the conditions in which war and conflict no longer feels like the logical choice or the inevitable outcome.
Only last year, the Church of England’s Pensions Board established the Global Centre for Peacebuilding and Business to respond to - the growing global demand for minerals and energy, the expansion of extractive industries into fragile and conflict-affected contexts, the risks that flow from this, and the extraordinary presence and reach of the Church in many of those places.
In South Sudan, a country where, for ordinary people, the situation is getting worse and nothing seems to be getting through to the political inner circle, the Church continues to be the most trusted and far-reaching national institution, engaged in peacebuilding, humanitarian responses, education and healthcare. This role is replicated in other fragile and conflict-ridden countries and underscores the Church’s commitment to being a force for reconciliation and peace.
My Lords, all of this is by way of saying that in today’s age of disorder, peacebuilding should be understood not merely as a humanitarian endeavour but as a strategic imperative to national security, economic resilience and long-term stability.
In a world increasingly focused on preparing for conflict, it’s important that we continue making the case for peace and peacebuilding with all due seriousness.
Committing to a Strategic Peace Review, to sit alongside the Strategic Defence Review, would be an important but long overdue step in this direction.
Thursday 29 October - Question for Short Debate on Support and Resources for Refugee Community Sponsorship
Later on Thursday 29 October, Bishop Guli asked the following Question for Short Debate:
"The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of refugees that will be settled annually through community sponsorship; and what steps they are taking to provide adequate resources and support to sponsors. "
Bishop Guli's speech introducing the debate can be watched below.
The full debate can be watched here.
-
Read a transcript of Bishop Guli's speech
My Lords I’m grateful to have secured this debate and to those who will speak.
Community sponsorship offers a distinctive approach to refugee settlement. It enables people not simply to welcome refugees in principle but to stand alongside them in practice: securing a home, navigating unfamiliar systems, building relationships and new lives. It’s a considerable commitment and an expression of the best of our civic life or, as the Prime Minister might chose to see it, a courageous example of hope, where families are welcomed by their neighbours.
It’s been a privilege to witness the scheme’s extraordinary capacity to transform the lives of displaced people and enrich communities in my own diocese and across the UK since its launch at Lambeth Palace in 2016.
People want to help provide refugee protection. The Government’s role is to create a safe, managed and sustainable framework that turns that willingness into action and I’m grateful for their commitment in wanting to make it work.
My understanding is that the Government will today open applications to the scheme. If that’s correct, it’s an important milestone, and will I hope provide the Minister with an opportunity to share more about their ambitions for partnership working with communities and sponsors to make this pathway a joint success.
Communities need to know what is expected of them, how many refugees the programme hopes to support, and what resources are available. These are questions of ambition, capacity and responsibility which I hope we can explore a little today.
The Government wants to restore public confidence in the migration system. We see the human tragedy of people risking their lives in small boats and hear concerns about pressures on services, housing, and cohesion. Yet these concerns are too often presented as a choice between compassion and control.
The model of community sponsorship demonstrates that this is a false choice. It offers a safe, regular and well-managed route for refugees to rebuild their lives while strengthening communities.
In this scheme, communities choose to participate. Numbers are known. Arrivals prepared for. Accommodation and support are planned and secured beforehand. This contrasts starkly with disorderly arrivals, emergency hotels and last-minute dispersal, which undermine trust and fuel anxiety.
Sponsorship instead encourages cohesion and named sponsorship establishes relationships from the start, leading to faster integration. Evidence shows that sponsored refugees learn English faster, find work sooner, and rely less on public services because support helps their independence, reducing long-term costs associated with homelessness, unemployment, and poor health.
It’s right that the scale of sponsorship is driven by the willingness and capacity of communities, rather than by an arbitrary cap. But can I ask the Minister how the Government will assess that capacity and also the potential for growth as infrastructure develops through new pathways for education and employment? How will faith groups, refugee-led organisations, voluntary-sector organisations and local authorities be consulted before numbers are determined?
Sponsorship should also be a flexible national asset that can be mobilised rapidly in response to emerging humanitarian disasters. A mature system could provide a durable framework for future crises without requiring entirely new programmes. Homes for Ukraine demonstrated the public’s willingness to respond with over 175,000 arrivals.
The Government has said arrivals through the Resettlement Scheme and sponsorship routes will initially number in the hundreds, rising to the low thousands. However, it must ensure not to constrain the ambition of willing sponsors and I hope the scheme may in time become fully accessible to other parts of the world, not just those currently named.
The existing scheme has supported more than 1,200 refugees through over 200 sponsors. Canada’s comparable programme has resettled over 440,000 refugees since 1979.
In preparing for this debate, I contacted organisations supporting refugees to gauge their interest in participating, as well as the Church of England. I heard from:
The Salvation Army
Welcome Churches
The Pickwell Foundation
Refugee Education UK
Citizens UK
Rest
Rohingya Association UK
Welsh Refugee Council
Micro RainbowThat’s an impressive and diverse group of potential partners. It’s important that Government and this House “welcome the welcomers”.
Community sponsorship is emotionally and practically demanding, particularly in divisive times. Those giving their time and resources should be recognised and protected. Civil society and Government must work closely together, so the welcomers feel confident to provide support effectively.
I hope today is a helpful opportunity for the Minister to place on record the Government’s thanks to the thousands of volunteers who have supported refugees through sponsorship schemes over the past decade and will be integral in the future.
My question also concerns the support available to sponsors. It would be easy to focus on funding without acknowledging the Government’s considerable investment into the processing requirements, including overseas vetting and logistical arrangements.
What plans does the Government have to build societal infrastructure so that community sponsorship becomes a self-sustaining, resilient and community-owned model? Generosity cannot replace professional support so how will the Government help lead sponsors to offer specialist assistance including training, safeguarding and administrative support?
And how will it ensure that sponsorship remains accessible to less affluent groups that wish to participate including local churches and faith groups?
My Lords, the question before us today is not simply how many refugees the Government intends to welcome through sponsorship. It’s whether the Government is ready to build a programme communities can participate in confidently and refugees can rely on.
Community sponsorship can be a powerful expression of shared responsibility. It’s a safe and controlled model and importantly rooted in the best of who we are as a society. With proper planning, sustained support and a clear commitment from government, it can offer refugees not only safety, but the opportunity to belong, flourish and contribute.
