Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for initiating this debate and, of course, grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC259). I am also grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon.
The Government have considered carefully the committee’s observations and concerns raised by external stakeholders. Just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am extremely happy to have this responsibility today. I have a number of hats but I am particularly concerned that people do not see my responsibility as undermining the fairness of the system. I am absolutely committed to that.
In response to the concerns raised during that scrutiny by the committee and external stakeholders, we have taken steps to provide greater clarity about the operation of the process, including adopting the name “single protection interview” in place of “merged registration”, to better reflect the nature of the interview and the role it plays in the asylum process. We remain committed to maintaining an asylum system that is both fair and efficient, ensuring that those who need protection receive it promptly while enabling clearly unfounded claims to be resolved more quickly.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned the importance of fairness. As the Home Secretary said in her conference speech this year:
“Fairness is what unites us in this country. And a fair society unlocks the very best of us. Because when people think this country is fair, they are more open and generous to others. When we are secure in ourselves, we are more tolerant too, because the existence of one group does not threaten another … When fairness isn’t present, the opposite is true. When this country feels unfair, people turn inwards”.
Our purpose therefore is
“to create that fairness in our immigration system … and …to hold this country together at a time when others seek to divide us”.
Concerns have been raised by the external stakeholders and the committee about the introduction of the single protection interview. The purpose of this change is straightforward: rather than requiring both a screening interview and a substantive interview in every case, claims identified as suitable will be considered through a single, expanded interview that combines both processes. Importantly, this remains a personal interview. As the published guidance makes clear, claimants are interviewed by a trained caseworker and are given an opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, provide relevant information and answer questions about their circumstances.
This reform is intended to reduce unnecessary time processing cases where there is no realistic prospect that a further interview would materially change the outcome. It will allow decision-makers to establish the basis of a protection claim while ensuring that claimants have an opportunity to explain their circumstances in full. Importantly, this is not a reduction in the standard of decision-making. Each claim will continue to be considered individually, and decisions will continue to be based on the specific facts of the case before the decision-maker.
I turn to the specific questions that noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend, asked in relation to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism about lack of consultation and whether further changes will be subject to consultation. In her Restoring Order and Control policy statement, the Home Secretary set out that:
“We will change our Immigration Rules so that the most egregious protection claims can be considered and refused following a single interview—conducted when the claim is first made. This will target citizens of manifestly safe countries who make unmeritorious protection claims to frustrate their removal”.
Ahead of publication of the guidance, the Home Office engaged stakeholders through its regular stakeholder engagement group on the proposed single protection interview process, providing an opportunity to explain the approach and hear stakeholder views. The guidance itself was not shared widely with stakeholders prior to publication. Since the committee’s report, detailed operational guidance on the single protection interview has been published, as my noble friend acknowledged.
The single protection interview is an operational process designed to improve how suitable asylum claims are considered; it does not change the legal framework governing asylum or protection decisions. The Government believe that the underlying policy objective remains sound. The need to improve efficiency in the asylum system, reduce unnecessary process steps and focus resources where they are most needed justifies proceeding with these targeted changes. The Home Office regularly engages with external stakeholders, and will continue to do so as part of the review for the single protection interview process.
My noble friend asked, in response to what the committee said, that the Home Office should publish draft guidance alongside statements of changes as a default approach. It may not always be possible to publish guidance alongside the statement of changes, but guidance is published prior to, or at the time of, the change being implemented. She also asked about sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders for consultation. The single protection interview is an operational process and does not alter the legal tests for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification. Detailed operational guidance has been published and is publicly available on GOV.UK. The Home Office will consider sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders as part of the review process and remains committed to ensuring continuous improvement.
My noble friend in particular, as well as the right reverend Prelate, raised this clarification of how rerouting back into the standard asylum process would be activated. All claims continue to be considered on their individual merits and in accordance with the relevant asylum guidance. Following a single protection interview, a decision on an asylum claim may be made when sufficient information has been obtained and no further interviewing or inquiries are required. To come to the point that the right revered Prelate made, when additional information, evidence-gathering or interviewing is required, the claim must proceed through the standard asylum process. Any additional steps, including further interviews where necessary, should be arranged in accordance with the standard procedures. The single protection interview delivers the Government’s commitment to consider and refuse clearly unfounded protection claims at the earliest possible stage of the asylum process.
The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend raised the question about when someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or is making an LGBT+-related claim, asking for a commitment that this would not be subject to an SPI process. I emphasise that the process applies only, as noble Lords have acknowledged, to a narrowly defined cohort of claims from countries assessed as among the safest in the world. The Home Office recognises that individuals may disclose information relevant to their protection claim at different stages of the asylum process. As noble Lords have pointed out, this can occur for a range of reasons across a range of protection grounds. Specifically, we also recognise that some individuals may find it difficult to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity at the earliest opportunity. Published guidance and training for asylum decision-makers recognises that factors including fear, stigma, trauma, cultural or religious pressures, previous concealment, concerns about confidentiality and personal safety may affect disclosure. Decision-makers are trained to consider such factors when assessing evidence and credibility.
The single protection interview does not remove the opportunity for individuals to disclose information that is relevant to their claim. As with an asylum interview, individuals are given the opportunity to explain the basis of their claim, provide supporting evidence and raise any additional matters that they may consider relevant. The published SPI guidance makes it clear that, before concluding the interview, claimants must be given
“a reasonable opportunity to raise any additional matters they consider relevant to their protection claim”.
Where information that requires further exploration, additional evidence-gathering, safeguarding activity or further interviewing emerges, the case can proceed through the standard asylum process. The process therefore includes safeguards to ensure that relevant information disclosed during the consideration of a claim can be fully considered before a decision is reached.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The answer is that it is about the reasons that people give for their asylum claim and where they are from in relation to that. We are talking, as I think noble Lords have acknowledged, about a small cohort of people. We are not changing the basis for people claiming asylum; we are making it clear that there is a process for a very small cohort to have a much more speedy and efficient way of dealing with their claims.
My noble friend and others asked whether further training is envisaged. As the published guidance makes clear, claimants are interviewed by a trained decision-maker, and, as I said, claimants will be given the opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, to provide relevant information and to answer questions about their circumstances. Decision-makers receive specialist training on identifying and assessing vulnerability in the asylum system, as well as on assessing all claims using detailed country policy and evidential guidance, ensuring that protection is provided where it is needed and that unfounded claims are identified and refused.
My noble friend asked about how claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence; a number of noble Lords referred to the fact that this information was deleted from the rules. The published SPI guidance states:
“Claimants must be given at least 5 full working days following their Single Protection interview to submit any further representations before a decision is made”.
Under this process, individuals remain responsible for providing evidence in support of their protection claim. Moreover, the single protection interview does not alter the legal framework for considering asylum claims or the evidence that may be submitted in support of them. Decision-makers will consider all relevant information and available evidence when assessing a claim. Where further information is required or it becomes clear that a case requires more detailed consideration, it may be routed out of the single protection interview process and considered through an alternative route.
My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford asked about access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process. To be clear, the changes do not alter a claimant’s entitlement to legal advice or legal aid. The published SPI guidance says that claimants having their claim considered under this process must be given
“the opportunity to be accompanied by a legal representative”.
The legal framework governing asylum decision-making remains unchanged. Claimants remain able to provide additional information and evidence in support of their claim. The policy concerns the structure of the interview process rather than access to legal representation. The SPI is an asylum interview. It does not remove or reduce procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of protection claims, including access to legal representation and claimants being able to submit information that is relevant to their claim. The reported concerns around access to legal aid are not unique to this change and should not be conflated with it.
Noble Lords have raised what the Home Office said to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries. My noble friend suggested that the implication is that the process could be extended to other countries and involve further selection criteria. The single protection interview is suitable for only a limited cohort of cases. The process applies only to a narrowly defined cohort of claims from countries that have been assessed as among the safest in the world: EU and EEA states, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States.
Additionally, the guidance states:
“A case may be considered for the Single Protection Interview where … The available information indicates that the claim appears to be clearly unfounded … There are no indicators suggesting that a fuller examination of the claim is likely to be required … It is likely to be unnecessary to test the credibility of any claims made as they can be considered at their highest … The claimant is fit to be interviewed … There are no safeguarding concerns or vulnerabilities that would make the process inappropriate”.
I also want to be clear—this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord German—that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and age-disputed children do not fall into the cohort and so do not qualify for the single protection interview.
My noble friend’s final question related to how the process can be monitored and how we can give an assurance that there is no extension of SPI until there is clear evidence about how it is working. The Home Office will carefully monitor the conduct of this process, including interviews and decisions. There are no plans to extend SPI without carefully considering the evidence of how it works in practice, and I am sure that the input from external stakeholders will be part of that consideration.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not about cost—it is about efficiency and fairness. It represents a measured and targeted reform. These changes do not alter the United Kingdom’s protection obligations, do not remove the requirement to consider claims individually and do not apply to vulnerable or complex cases. Instead, they are designed, as I said, to deliver a more efficient asylum system by enabling clearly unfounded claims from a limited cohort of claimants to be considered more quickly, while ensuring resources remain more focused.
I thank noble Lords for their time. I am sorry I have gone over time a little bit.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, and I thank my noble friend for very patiently dealing with all our questions. I shall have to read the Hansard afterwards, but I suspect that we may have subsequent questions to raise. I very much welcome his emphasis on the general principle of fairness, and his saying that this applies to people whatever their means of coming here. They may be coming here by irregular means, but they are not illegal; they have a right to have their asylum claim treated fairly. I am glad that that is, in effect, what my noble friend was saying.
I shall not go into any detail now, as I am conscious that time is moving on. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed.