Lords committee draws latest immigration rule changes to House’s attention over ‘minor’ asylum interview reforms

This month’s statement of changes in the Immigration Rules (HC 259) has been drawn to the special attention of the House of Lords in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s latest report (available here).

The statement of changes introduced a “merged registration” process for a limited number of asylum claims likely to be considered clearly unfounded. Under the new system, some applicants from countries regarded as “manifestly safe” would have a single interview combining registration and assessment of their claim, replacing the current two-stage interview process. The ability for claimants to submit further information is also being changed.

The statement of changes’ explanatory memorandum had these changes listed under ‘Other Minor Changes’ but the Committee received a submission from the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture that argued they were anything but.

According to the submission, the changes “represent a substantial shift in the asylum procedure and one which should have been subject to wider consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny”. Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation said the changes, which come into force on 3 August, substantially amend the asylum interview process so that some people may be refused asylum without a separate substantive interview or the opportunity to present further information.

Disagreeing with the submission, the Home Office told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the measure is a minor one because it makes a limited procedural change to when and how information is gathered, rather than altering the substantive criteria for determining an asylum claim. It said the process is expected to apply to only around 400 to 600 cases each year and is intended to allow caseworkers to focus on more complex claims.

The Home Office further told the Committee that the reforms do not change the legal criteria for asylum or remove applicants’ ability to provide evidence, seek legal advice, make representations or have their claim considered on its individual merits. It said decision-makers are trained to identify vulnerability, trauma and safeguarding issues, and that any case involving indicators of complexity, trafficking or protection needs would be removed from the merged registration process and dealt with under the standard asylum procedure.

While the Committee said it welcomed the Home Office’s assurance that applicants would still be able to submit additional evidence, including medico-legal reports, after the merged interview, it questioned why the Government was removing wording from the Immigration Rules stating that applicants should be given “a reasonable opportunity to submit further information” if that opportunity would continue in practice. The Committee said the Home Office had not adequately explained why the Rules were being amended to remove the wording.

In addition, the Committee criticised the Home Office for failing to explain why it had not consulted on the operational changes, arguing that practitioners could have helped shape the new process.

It further expressed concern that key details of how the merged registration system will operate, including the safeguards and criteria for its use, will be contained in guidance that has yet to be published. Reiterating previous recommendations, the Committee said guidance that is necessary to understand the practical effect of changes in the law should be published alongside legislation to enable effective parliamentary scrutiny.

In concluding, the Committee stated: “The submission and the Home Office have presented different views on the significance of this change. It is not our place to arbitrate on the point. However, we do find weaknesses in the explanatory material; for example, in relation to why one particular part of the rules is being deleted, the reasons for the lack of consultation and the absence of guidance that would illuminate how the change will operate in practice. The House may wish to enquire further on these points.”