Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise that you have the B team, as I think we are referring to ourselves today. My noble friend Lady Twycross has unfortunately been taken ill and I am sure that, on behalf of the Committee, we will be sending her our best wishes.
Telecommunications networks and services underpin the modern economy and society of the UK, enabling businesses in every sector of the economy to function and grow, and ensuring that individuals everywhere are connected and digitally included. These networks support critical national infrastructure and services that people and public bodies rely on every day, including calls to emergency services, ambulance and hospital communications, and medical alarms. The Government have committed to ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality, secure and resilient digital connectivity. A sudden disruption to connectivity services would have a serious impact on individuals and businesses across the country that depend on reliable telecommunications networks.
On Monday 5 October, BT Group plc announced that it had acquired TalkTalk Telecom Group out of administration. As has been widely reported, it had been seeking a buyer for its consumer and wholesale businesses for some time, but no deal was reached. Given the possibility that the disconnection of TalkTalk’s customers could put lives at risk and disrupt the continuity of the supply of telecommunications, on 5 October the Secretary of State issued a public interest intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may issue a public interest intervention notice where they believe that one or more of the public interest considerations specified in Section 58 of the Act may be relevant. It also allows for the Secretary of State to specify a public interest consideration that is not specified, but in their opinion ought to be. Where a new public interest consideration is specified, the Secretary of State is required to seek to have that consideration specified in Section 58 of the Act as soon as practicable.
The considerations that the Secretary of State specified in the public interest intervention notice of 5 October were: the need to maintain in the UK the capability to combat and mitigate the effect of public health emergencies; and the need to maintain in the UK the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services for the purposes of preventing disruption to the economy and society of the United Kingdom, including in particular disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and the supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable.
The first of these, relating to public health emergencies, is already specified in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, while the second, relating to the need to maintain the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services, is a new consideration which the Secretary of State believes ought to be specified in the Act. Introducing this new consideration will allow the Secretary of State to have regard to a broader range of considerations and impacts that may arise within the specific context of a qualifying merger, where there are concerns about widespread and/or significant disruptions to telecommunications services. This would include considerations around maintaining critical national infrastructure connections and the impacts on society and the economy of widespread or significant prolonged connectivity disruption. Such disruption could affect businesses, employment and government services. Critically, this enables the Secretary of State to consider the impact on vulnerable people such as those who rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communications services to access emergency assistance.
This kind of intervention is not unprecedented. New public interest considerations have been specified in this manner before to address urgent matters—for example, the public interest consideration in maintaining the stability of the UK financial system was introduced for the Lloyds TSB Group plc/HBOS plc merger in 2008.
We believe it is important that the legislative framework is now updated to reflect the importance of telecommunications in our society and to guard against the serious consequences that widespread disruption of connectivity could have. The Secretary of State’s intervention in the BT/TalkTalk merger is driven by serious concerns that there could be sudden disruption to vital broadband and phone services affecting millions of people. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public where essential services could be put at risk. That is why the Secretary of State is intervening to ensure that wider risks to the public are properly considered alongside competition concerns.
The Competition and Markets Authority has reported to the Secretary of State with an assessment of competition considerations and a summary of representations received on public interest considerations; this was provided on 19 October. The Secretary of State will consider the Competition and Markets Authority’s report alongside wider evidence of the public interest considerations. Only then will the Secretary of State decide whether to refer the case for a more detailed investigation on competition or public interest grounds or both, or to clear the transaction without any further investigation. The Government are committed to promoting competition in the broadband market and our statement of strategic priorities highlights the importance of this. The UK has a strong pro-competition regulatory framework environment that has supported significant commercial investment in fibre broadband across the UK.
The order does not determine the outcome of the merger process. It will, however, serve to allow the Secretary of State to consider the potential impact of significant disruptions to telecommunications services on public services and wider society, alongside the public health emergencies consideration, also mentioned in the intervention notice, and any competition issues. I hope that noble Lords will agree with the rationale I have presented on the need for the legislative framework to be updated so that these important considerations can be accounted for going forward. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, not least for stepping in and giving us the opportunity to hear such a clear exposition of the purpose of the order that we are debating this afternoon. Of course, the order adds continuity of telecommunications services to the public interest considerations specified under the Enterprise Act 2002. If these things are a minority sport, I am sorry to say that I have been playing it a long time, as I was on the Standing Committee on the Enterprise Bill in 2002 and was also around when, under the Communications Act, we put the news media and others into the specified considerations. I also probably participated in debates in 2020 putting public health into the specified considerations.
This is a short debate with a limited number of participants, but it is quite an important debate. In the past, adding specified considerations has always been regarded as a significant step that we should consider very carefully. This order, which puts this issue into the specified considerations for when the public interest intervention notice can be issued, is a recognition of the importance of the objective. Things such emergency calls, hospital communications, medical alarms and the activities of businesses dependent on reliable connectivity are all important and we must protect those services. Indeed, the particular point of this is to protect vulnerable customers.
However, the order also extends ministerial discretion within merger control. We should therefore examine how that discretion will be exercised, how competition will be preserved or promoted, and whether another framework for company failure could reduce the need to rely on it. The immediate context is BT’s acquisition of TalkTalk’s consumer and wholesale businesses. Ofcom has explained that failure could affect vulnerable customers served indirectly through resellers as well as people whose telephone numbers have been transferred from TalkTalk to other providers but whose services still depend on its network. Those are serious risks. Nevertheless, customers also have a lasting interest in effective competition, choice, fair prices, innovation and investment. The acquisition of a competitor by a dominant operator requires proper examination, even where the circumstances demand urgency.
I am not asking the Minister to prejudge the Competition and Markets Authority’s conclusions. Indeed, we do not know what its conclusions are. The letter was delivered in the afternoon of 19 October and the conclusions have not yet been published. I am however asking for assurance that the public interest consideration will supplement rigorous competition scrutiny and will not become a reason to dispense with it.
Under this framework, the Secretary of State determines the overall public interest outcome. Following a detailed investigation, she must accept the CMA’s finding on whether there is an anti-competitive outcome, but she may weigh that against the specified public interest considerations. The choice of remedies, therefore, involves ministerial judgment.
That distinction matters. A conclusion that an acquisition is necessary to preserve services does not establish that every competition remedy would threaten continuity. A remedy protecting wholesale access or competing providers may be entirely compatible with uninterrupted service. Any decision to reject, weaken or defer a recommended pro-competition remedy should, therefore, be specifically justified.
That brings me to the alternative approach to which I referred. On 17 March this year, during Ofcom’s analyst and investor call, Natalie Black, who is Ofcom’s group director for infrastructure and connectivity, stated:
“We don’t have a special administration regime in the UK”.
She described arrangements for protecting consumers in co-operation with the department, but she identified no statutory telecoms special administration regime.
Water legislation provides an instructive comparison. It expressly provides for continuity following a licensed supplier’s exit and allows Ofwat to direct eligible replacement suppliers to take responsibility. The eligibility requirements qualify that power, but the mechanism exists. The telecommunications industry has arrangements that it describes as the “supplier of last resort”. The published process relies on best efforts by upstream providers, envisages eventual disconnection and would be superseded by an administration. It does not, therefore, provide statutory customer allocation, as in the water industry case.
So, should we consider a framework that allows Ofcom to seek a court-appointed special administrator to maintain essential networks while a business is restructured or transferred, alongside arrangements for replacement suppliers to take responsibility for customers? Such a framework would not necessarily remove every need for this public interest consideration, but it could reduce the need to invoke continuity as a justification for accepting what might potentially be lasting competition harm. A statutory special administration regime could, therefore, address both problems by maintaining essential services during failure and ensuring that customers could be transferred in an orderly manner if the business could not be saved.
Such a regime would require legislation, appropriate funding arrangements and design. However, in the first instance, the Government could establish which elements Ofcom could introduce under its existing powers and which additional powers would then be required from Parliament. The choice should not be presented as one between continuity and competition; a properly designed failure regime could protect both. It could keep essential services operating, give regulators time to identify alternative purchases, enable orderly customer transfers and ensure that competition remedies were properly tested before any acquisition was approved.
I ask the Minister to respond on four points. First, can she confirm that the Government will treat effective Competition and Markets Authority competition remedies as a priority objective, and depart from them only where the Secretary of State publishes a clear explanation of both the continuity risk and why a pro-competitive option would not suffice?
Secondly, will she ensure that the CMA’s report on the BT and TalkTalk transaction is made available to Parliament promptly, subject to the necessary confidentiality protections? I would have liked to have seen it and read it, together with the Government’s response and the reasons for any decision affecting competition, before this debate, but, clearly, that has not happened.
Thirdly, can the Minister commit to requiring that any undertakings accepted in the public interest contain precise obligations, independent monitoring and meaningful consequences for breaches—including protections for wholesale customers, resellers and competing providers, where necessary?
Fourthly, I ask the Minister to review with Ofcom the case for a telecommunications special administration regime, including statutory customer allocation arrangements, and to publish the conclusions from such a review with a timetable for deciding whether legislation is required.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has been his normal comprehensive self. I will touch on many similar themes, with one or two additional ones. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for introducing this order, and I think we all hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, quickly recovers and is back in her place.
From these Benches—or chairs—we accept that the Government faced a real emergency at the start of this month and that they had to act quickly. The facts are stark. TalkTalk had about 2.5 million customers after a long and unsuccessful sale process, and it was on the brink of liquidation. Around 250,000 of those customers are vulnerable, and many rely on telecare alarms and monitoring devices that need a working connection. TalkTalk’s network also carries traffic for schools, hospitals, emergency care and businesses across our critical national infrastructure. A sudden and disorderly collapse was not an option for any responsible Government to contemplate—I will come back to that issue shortly.
Therefore, of course we do not oppose this order. In our view, adding the continuity of supply of telecommunications services to the public interest considerations in Section 58 follows a sensible line. Financial stability was added, as we have heard, during the 2008 crisis, and public health emergencies during the pandemic. Telecoms are now as essential to our economy and our society as either of these—and, indeed, one might ask why it took a crisis to get this on to the list.
However, supporting the principle does not mean that waving the order through without scrutiny is a good idea. I will raise four sets of concerns, some of which touch on what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but the first does not, and that is process. This order was made at 4.07 pm on 12 October, laid an hour later and came into force the next day. The public interest intervention notice was issued on 5 October, a week before the order existed, and already relied on this proposed new ground. In other words, the Government issued a notice on a public interest consideration that was not yet law and then made the law to match the notice. That was highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and should be noted by this Committee.
I understand why the Government acted at speed, but Parliament is now being asked to approve, after the event, a power that was already shaping a live merger case. Can the Minister confirm what legal advice the Government took on issuing a notice that cited a ground not yet on the statute book? Will the Minister accept that this way of legislating should be the rare exception—perhaps a unique exception, I suggest—and must not become a template?
The second point is competition—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has touched on that already. Let us be clear about what the public interest mechanism does. It allows the Secretary of State to weigh broader considerations against the competition assessment and, if she chooses, to override it. This is a very significant power, and here it is being exercised in favour of the incumbent, or it would be.
After this acquisition, BT’s share of the retail broadband market will rise significantly. Openreach, which, as we know, is BT’s own wholesale arm, is TalkTalk’s largest supplier. TalkTalk’s wholesale business, PlatformX, serves other providers which now find their supplier owned by their biggest competitor. Rival operators have publicly called this a stitch-up presented as a rescue. I do not say that that charge is right, but the Government must be able to show that it is wrong.
The CMA delivered its report to the Secretary of State on 19 October and its contents have not yet been published, so I ask the Minister: will that report be published so that Parliament and the market can see the competition analysis that the Secretary of State is weighing? Will the Government commit that any clearance will come with robust, enforceable undertakings? Those should cover wholesale access on fair terms for PlatformX customers, protections for retail prices and choice, and a firm ring-fence between Openreach and BT’s retail arm in how TalkTalk customers are treated. What is the Government’s assessment of the effect on the altnets, whose investment has done so much to bring competition into full fibre?
The third issue is the gap that this order exposes—again, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the same issue. BT’s own briefing makes the point frankly: energy and water have special administration regimes and gas and electricity retail have a supplier of last resort regime. Telecom has neither. When a major provider fails, our only real lever is to find a buyer and in practice, that buyer is likely to be the largest player in the market. That is not a resilience strategy; it is just hope.
This order treats a symptom. It gives the Secretary of State a merger tool but it does nothing for the next failure where no buyer appears, or where the other buyer is one whose acquisition would do lasting damage to the competition. Will the Government commit to consult in this Session on a special administration regime for systematically important telecoms providers? Will they ask Ofcom to advise on a supplier of last resort mechanism, especially for vulnerable customers and telecare users? These are the people who matter most as the digital voice switchover continues. Those protections should not depend on whether a willing buyer happens to exist.
The fourth issue is on security and definitions. BT told Ofcom that TalkTalk still runs Huawei equipment in parts of its network and said that legacy network will be kept entirely separate. Can the Minister tell us how that separation will be monitored, by whom, and on what timetable the Telecommunications (Security) Act removal requirements will be met? The noble Baronesses on the ministerial side were not in Parliament when we debated this in full, and Parliament’s will was very clear that this technology should be removed from our telecoms supply chain. On drafting, new subsection (2EA) refers to telecommunications services without defining the term, so can the Minister confirm what the definition is intended to be? Does it extend beyond fixed and mobile access to the data centres, cloud and interconnection services on which our digital economy now depends? As we debate the cyber security and resilience Bill, we need a consistent view as to what counts as critical digital infrastructure, rather than one definition in each statute.
The Government acted to prevent real harm to real people and for that they deserve credit, but an emergency fix carries obligations. It must be transparent, so publish the CMA report. It must be competitive, so impose strong undertakings, and it must be followed by a proper, durable framework for telecoms failure, so that next time Ministers are not legislating against the clock to approve a deal that has already happened. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for bringing forward this order for scrutiny and for so gamely stepping in at the last minute. We wish the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, well for a speedy recovery.
This secondary legislation would enable the Secretary of State to take into account a wider range of public interest considerations when deciding whether to intervene in takeovers in the telecommunications sector. The department has argued that this merely closes a gap in the existing framework. However, it follows the commercial decision by BT to take over TalkTalk, which was then investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority, which reported to the Secretary of State on 19 October. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fox, that it is a shame that this report was not available before today’s debate. Can the Minister elaborate on its findings and the next steps?
I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this order to the special attention of the Committee. Will the Minister confirm that this legislation is not retrospective? What will be the implication for existing mergers and how do the Government intend to maintain investor confidence? I confirm that I am happy for any of my questions, of which there are many, to be answered by the Minister in writing at a later stage.
The department claims that there is a precedent for the use of these powers to amend the public interest grounds. Can the Minister specify these precedents? We must be cautious of potential government overreach and we should allow the independent regulator to do its job properly. An overzealous Secretary of State could use these powers in such a way that fundamentally undermines the UK’s competitiveness. What safeguards will there be to prevent overuse of these powers leading to investor flight?
The order adds the need to maintain
“the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services for the purposes of preventing disruption to the economy and society of the United Kingdom, including, in particular, disruption to—(a) public services; (b) critical national infrastructure; (c) supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable”.
Such changes must be tightly defined. Can the Minister say how such disruption will be measured? Can we apply the same criteria for judging the Government’s own policies? This addition will give the Secretary of State the power
“to guard against the serious consequences that widespread disruption of connectivity could have for public safety, critical infrastructure, essential services and the orderly functioning of society”.
How do the Government define and how will they assess the “orderly functioning of society”? Can the Minister indicate whether this additional consideration will be used imminently?
There are legitimate concerns over the timing and potential use of this order. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Committee assurances on these points, even if that is in writing.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their best wishes for my noble friend and for their indulgence of me at the Dispatch Box on this matter. I will reflect on Hansard and write regarding any points that I miss, but I hope to be able to give some substantive answers to noble Lords who have participated.
The debate shows a recognition of the importance of telecommunications services to the functioning of the UK’s modern economy and society. It is important that everyone in the UK has access to high-quality, secure and resilient digital connectivity. The new public interest consideration inserted by the order will enable the Secretary of State to have regard to a broader range of considerations and impacts that may arise within the specific context of a qualifying merger where there are concerns about widespread and/or significant disruption to telecommunications services.
I will now respond to the specific points raised, starting with the issues around competition concerns and BT increasing its market share, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This is why the Secretary of State asked the CMA to assess the competition impacts independently. As part of the process, the wider telecoms market and other interested third parties were able to make representations to the CMA. The UK telecoms market is highly competitive. The statement of strategic priorities, designated on 27 April this year, highlights that competition in the fixed telecoms market supports investment, innovation and consumer choice. As a result, the UK benefits from relatively low consumer pricing and prices have declined in recent years when adjusted for inflation. Ofcom, as the independent regulator, plays a key role in supporting competition, including by imposing proportionate remedies on Openreach where necessary.
The UK’s pro-competition approach has driven fibre rollout, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with over 100 alternative networks entering the market in recent years. According to Ofcom, as of January 2026, 77% of residential premises have access to more than one network and 61% have access to more than one gigabyte-capable network.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those several responses to the questions raised. We all mentioned the fact that we have not seen what the CMA has said.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If the noble Baroness can give us a prospective timetable for when the Secretary of State is going to make decisions, that would be helpful.
Lord Fox (LD)
And give a commitment that the CMA report, in full, will be published.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, you were two magic pieces of paper early. I will go straight to the issue of the CMA’s report. In line with the requirements of the Enterprise Act 2002, the Secretary of State will publish a non-confidential version of the CMA’s report once it has made a decision. All the noble Lords who participated raised that point.
I have answered the majority of the substantive points. I will reflect on Hansard and, if I have not answered something, I will write to noble Lords. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate today, and the officials who have worked on this.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 259) in light of the 10th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (HL Paper 42), published on 23 July.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, before proceeding with this take-note Motion, I thank Freedom from Torture for its help. Together with the Helen Bamber Foundation, it has drawn attention to the issues raised by this statement of changes in Immigration Rules. They have since been joined by a number of other expert stakeholder organisations. I also note the assistance I receive from RAMP, as listed in the register. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to the asylum brief, which I suspect will keep him pretty busy in the coming months. I thank noble Lords who are attending. I know my noble friend Lord Dubs has to leave at some point, so he may just be here for moral support, but moral support from him is always very welcome.
I am drawing the statement of changes to the Committee’s attention following the SLSC’s 10th report, which recorded a number of weaknesses in the explanatory material provided by the Home Office—not for the first time. The statement involves the introduction of what is now being called a “single protection interview”. It was originally called “merged registration”, but while I am glad that the Home Office appears to have taken SLSC’s advice to change the name, calling it a single protection interview, given the concerns raised, does seem rather Orwellian.
The new approach will, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Involve one interview, covering the registration of the asylum claim, screening of the individual, and the establishment and assessment of the basis of claim. The interviewing officer will ask relevant and appropriate questions to establish whether an individual has protection needs and, if not, whether they can be removed from the UK without the need for a further asylum interview”.
Although the Home Office suggests that only a minority of cases will be treated in this way, and that it constitutes only a minor change, the SLSC notes that the submission from Freedom from Torture and Helen Bamber warns that it represents “a substantial shift” in the asylum procedure. While the SLSC accepted the Home Office’s argument that only a small proportion of asylum seekers is likely to be affected and that the change did not alter the substantive criteria in the rules, it did not consider that this constituted an adequate justification for the Home Office’s failure, once again, to consult on the matter.
The report states:
“it is precisely in the operational implementation where consultation can often be the most productive; we have previously highlighted numerous examples of instruments where consultation could have improved operational policy design, including in relation to changes to immigration rules”.
Then, in bold, it states:
“The Home Office has therefore not provided a valid reason for the lack of consultation in this case, which we regard as unacceptable”.
Strong words indeed. I would welcome my noble friend’s response to them and ask whether he accepts the criticism, which clearly has implications for future changes to the rules. Will he give a commitment now that any further changes to the policy will be subject to consultation with expert stakeholders and those with lived experience of the asylum process?
The SLSC was also critical of the fact that the guidance which puts the flesh on the new rules was not published alongside the statement to illuminate how the change will operate in practice. Again in bold, it notes:
“As we have stated before, and including in relation to earlier changes in immigration rules, where guidance is important to understanding the effect of a change in the law, it should be published (in draft, if necessary) alongside the instrument to enable scrutiny. We are firmly of the opinion that the Home Office should adopt this as the default approach for future Statements of Changes”.
Once more, I would welcome my noble friend’s response to that.
It should also be noted that, although the guidance has now been published, there was no consultation on it, despite a written request to the Home Office from four organisations in the field. Will my noble friend the Minister at least agree to the Home Office sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders for consultation, so that they can assess and advise on how effectively it will serve to identify vulnerability and safeguarding concerns?
It is to these substantive concerns that I now turn. Although I am sure we all applaud the general attempts to speed up the asylum process, they should not come at the expense of the quality of decision-making. I was rather concerned about the Home Office’s response to one of the SLSC’s questions, which said that the primary purpose is not to improve the identification of trauma but to ensure that clearly unfounded claims can be considered more efficiently where appropriate.
At the heart of the sector’s concern is the fear that trauma will not be identified but overlooked, because the eligibility criteria and case selection process do not clearly exclude cases that raise safeguarding concerns and vulnerability indicators. These may not be identified during an SPI’s accelerated process. They point to evidence of the current failure at screening to identify and respond to indicators of vulnerability, trafficking and safeguarding concerns. Although the guidance allows for rerouting back into the standard asylum process, it would seem that the onus is on the asylum seeker to make any vulnerability clear during the SPI. However, the guidance does not make it clear what criteria will be applied and how such rerouting would be decided, nor how a claimant will know and understand that possibility. If my noble friend could clarify this, that would be very helpful.
This raises the other main related concern. Research and the Home Office’s own earlier guidance identify the many barriers to early disclosure of vulnerability, trauma or sexuality. Torture survivors could find it very difficult to talk about their experience. Similarly, LGBTQI+ people often delay claiming asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression or sex characteristics due to, among other things, their feeling unsafe, a history of trauma and a lack of understanding that oppression due to sexual orientation constitutes an accepted ground for asylum.
That said, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or is making an LGBTQI+-related claim, can my noble friend give a commitment that they will not be subjected to the SPI process? This is more likely in the case of an in-country claim, but it is not clear from the guidance whether the SPI process will apply to both in-country and at-border claims, although I understand that officials have indicated it would apply to only in-country claimants. Can my noble friend please clarify this point and, if that is the case, ensure that the guidance is amended to make this clear?
The Home Office countered fears about disclosure with reference to the training of decision-makers, but a UNHCR study found that most staff had no or very limited training on how to spot vulnerability when it was not freely disclosed. Although training may have improved since that study, the most recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on asylum casework was pretty damning on the quality of both training and decision-making. What, if any, further training is envisaged?
The concern raised by the SLSC is on whether claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence, such as medical or legal reports, following the SPI. In fact, that has since been clarified in the guidance, but it is still not clear why it was deleted from the actual rules. Moreover, Freedom from Torture believes that the five days’ additional time specified is likely to be sufficient only in the most straightforward cases; much will depend on whether the claimant has been able to get legal representation. Again, I would be grateful for my noble friend’s thoughts on that.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the support that I have received from RAMP as one of its principals. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for creating this important opportunity to take note of and discuss the Government’s new single protection interview process, introduced through the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules. I acknowledge that procedural changes will often need to be facilitated through secondary legislation, but the nature of the changes before us raises 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. It therefore seems appropriate that time is allocated for proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is particularly pertinent if the Government wish 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. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, speed must not come at the expense of fairness. Are the Government confident that the new process will be able reliably to distinguish an unfounded claim from a genuine one that has not yet been fully understood and where additional information might 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 am right in my understanding that the Government have confirmed that applicants will retain the right to submit further information, why then remove the Immigration 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 rerouting 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 recognises that survivors of torture, trafficking and those from the LGBTQI+ community often disclose relevant experiences only after trust has been built up. 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 that 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 that the policy is seeking. The risk of refoulement is a serious potential consequence. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that every SPI decision may be unlawful, but I urge 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 are right to want to resolve clearly unfounded claims quickly to reduce delays and to avoid keeping people in prolonged uncertainty. The policy guidance allows for further investigation and interviews where necessary, which is of course welcome. The issue is whether, in practice, those safeguards will work consistently. I therefore ask the Minister: will interviewers 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 that the Minister may not be able to answer all the questions that I have asked today, but I would be grateful if he could commit to write.
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 also capable of recognising when a person’s right to asylum is evidence-based, even when they struggle to explain it at first or to provide corroborating information. The questions I have 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 that 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.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two such powerful and caring speeches focused on the justice of our asylum system—which, after all, in many cases addresses issues of life and death. I agree with virtually everything that both noble Baronesses said, so, rather than repeat what has been said, I will seek to add a couple of points to it.
We are focusing on the fact that we are talking about people whose lives have all too often been marked by torture, trauma, abuse and other suffering. The reality is that it is difficult for them to just sit down and talk about that. Although I almost always agree with her, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described a lot of the language and process here as rather Orwellian. I will take away that “rather” because our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reflected, in paragraph 4 of its report, on the term “merged registration”. That is where one interview covers the registration, the screening of the individual and the establishment and assessment of the basis of the claim. The scrutiny committee says of that term that
“‘merged registration’ does not accurately describe what the process will encompass”.
We should think about those people, very often with English as a second language, being in a really confusing situation. I have a direct question to the Minister: could we not at least call it something that would be immediately understandable if it was to be translated? I note that the committee also said:
“The Home Office may wish to consider using a more helpful, descriptive and easier to understand name”.
Are the Government taking that on board?
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to a really important report in the context of what we are debating: the June 2026 report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. It is worth revisiting its conclusion, which said that the quality of decision-making in the asylum system
“had declined … and was at an unacceptable level”.
It focused particularly on the problems of hiring staff—the appropriateness of the way in which staff are hired and who is hired—and the retention challenges. Four in 10 decision-makers left between April 2024 and May 2025, and those decision-makers had typically been in position for only 11 months. Again, I ask the Minister directly: will this simply be a cab rank system? Will the people using this process just be whoever is next in the queue or, if this system is to be used, will it be applied by more experienced and, I hope, more skilled and knowledgeable staff, who will have had the chance to experience seeing claims previously?
I also express concern about the Government’s intention to focus on a small number of countries. I will anonymise this quite heavily because I do not know the situation now of the individual concerned but, some years ago, I met a woman in Bristol who told me—I have no doubt that the fear that she was expressing was absolutely genuine—that she was the divorced wife of someone from a very powerful family on the Indian subcontinent and that she feared for her life if she was forced to go back to her home country. That is not a country issue but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, individuals may indeed be in a position of genuine fear of persecution in those kinds of circumstances. To know and understand that and be able to read a person’s explanation is a complex thing.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I first declare my interest that, like others, I am helped and supported by the RAMP organisation. I thank those who have already spoken. A huge number of remarks and questions have been addressed to the new Minister; in that context, I welcome him. He may not be as happy as he would like in this particular role because this topic of course causes great controversy within our House. An enormous number of issues need to be raised and dealt with, and we expect to find answers from the Home Office which are sometimes lacking.
Having previously spent three years as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am able to recognise an excoriating report when I see one, and this is clearly such a report. It is not often that the committee goes to such lengths to make such important points when it does not get answers from the department concerned. The challenge is that the committee itself will address its concerns back to the Home Office and will get answers from it. If it does not get the answers, that will be mentioned in the report and when it does not find that the answers are sufficient it will mention that, too. This report does that and Members on all sides have said clearly that there are questions to be raised and questions that need to be answered as a result.
I am glad about the changed name. When you merge things, you are perhaps supposed to do the merging in turn, but it was clearly an unsuitable title and I am glad that it has been changed, even though it now presents perhaps the same critique and problems that the original title suggested anyway. One of the challenges we face in addressing this issue in this changed piece of guidance and legislation is whether it is a minor change or a major change. I draw on my musical experience here. Things that are minor are usually sad and things that are major are things that we can judge in a more content manner. Clearly, this is not something which can be treated as being of a minor nature.
Paragraph 10 of the report notes that these words were deleted:
“Where the personal interview is omitted, the applicant and dependents shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit further information”.
The deletion of that sentence suggests that applicants may not be able to suspend the decision-making process to seek expert advice. The major change here is an operational one, bringing together two systems to try to shorten the process for a small number of cases, so we are assured.
What we do in this country and the way we address people’s individual needs for protection are judged against that background. People are not part of cohorts and not to be treated as part of some system that systemically makes things easier; every case deserves to be looked at on its merits. The individuality of assessments is not just present in this country but across the whole of Europe, though sometimes we have to pull those changes up and look at them in a critical way as well.
When you put together two systems, remove such a sentence and make this operational change, which is of some significance because you are reducing the opportunity of individual assessment, it is right that people around this Room ask: where is the legal aid provision? Where is the advice? Where is the training for those who will support people who are genuinely suffering from trauma and other mental health problems that come with the journeys that they have been on?
People faced with life-or-death decisions leave in a traumatic state. That state does not improve just because they have arrived here. They are nervous and their understanding of what will happen to them needs to be addressed. That is why a personalised assessment is so important. The problem with what we have before us is that there was no consultation, not even with the Government’s own consultative body. That was brought in just with the intent of speeding up the process. There was no impact assessment, because the Government maintain that it a minor change rather than a major one. I maintain that the operational aspects are entirely different from what they were before. For people going through this system, the nature of the operation is now entirely different—before there would be a process by which people’s cases would be individually understood.
Finally, as the report says, and as we have asked for, when the Government make changes to the rules of this sort, they should produce the draft guidance alongside the changes. Then we can judge whether the rules are being adjusted for a purpose that is actually accurate, rather than one of simplicity, which is what I think the original intention was. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that, in future, when changes are made to the Immigration Rules, which are of a major nature or can be interpreted as being such, the Home Office will do all three things: a consultation exercise, an impact assessment and guidance, which may be in draft but certainly would help us to make decisions about these matters.
I would like to talk about the trouble with shortcuts. If you take a shortcut and get a back lane instead of going down the main road, sometimes that can lead to barbed wire where the roads are closed at the end or where it is a bit dangerous to proceed. Shortcuts should be taken only if you know where the end is and whether the route is clear or not. That is particularly relevant here. This is a shortcut which has not yet determined whether the right end product is there and available.
The problem with changes that allegedly relate to a particular group of people is that, without a definition, we are left blank as to whether these people will be worse off than they were before and whether the cohort decision will blanket their approval or disapproval because of situations that are not of their making. A lot of strong messages have been sent to the Home Office, both in this debate and in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. I hope that the Minister has listened to and heard them, and that he will act on all those matters.
I want to raise one final matter on the changes to the Immigration Rules. It concerns a case with which I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, dealt. I have now succeeded in getting the approval of the two people concerned, in order to take this matter forward, but I raise a related question around the Immigration Rules on people with religious occupations.
The case I referred to is that of two nuns from Lesotho who were seeking to come to stay with an order in Humberside. They were being looked after by the same order to which they belonged, of course, and they were going to come and spend time with it. I do not reckon that that was a religious occupation; I reckon that they were building religious certainty and confidence, and were being helped. However, they failed at the border not because they did not have the appropriate visas but because of money: they could not determine how much money they would need to look after themselves in the United Kingdom. The answer, of course, is that holy orders and religious communities, including this particular religious community, have communal funds—that is, worldwide funds, not funds that are communal in the area they are in. So being “treated”—in inverted commas—to a break and a stay with another community of nuns in Merseyside was denied to them because they did not have the money in their pocket.
These two nuns come from Lesotho, which is, as anyone who has been there will know, one of the poorest countries in Africa. I declare my interest as the honorary consul for the Kingdom of Lesotho in Wales. So it is a matter of some importance to me that, when we deal with issues that are related to the Immigration Rules, we see people for what they are: individual people. They need to have their cases looked after properly, and we need to ensure that we do that.
In conclusion, we need—I suspect that everybody in this Room wants this—a fair system in a world where people’s decisions to come to this country for protection are matters of life and death for them. We need to ensure that they are protected properly. I hope that the Minister will take all of these points on board and make sure that the Home Office behaves, as this document says, in the appropriate manner for what I regard as a major change.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is the first proper opportunity I have had to welcome the Minister to his new role. I very much look forward to working with him in future. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for this opportunity to debate the changes to the Immigration Rules, and I am equally grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration.
As always, although I respect the concerns that have been expressed, I believe that it is important that we keep sight of the central issue. These changes do not alter the substantive legal tests for refugee status, humanitarian protection or human rights protection—rather, they are a procedural reform designed to make the asylum system operate more efficiently in a small and tightly defined category of cases.
The key change relates to what the Home Office describes as the “merged registration process”. Instead of requiring both a screening interview and a later, more substantive interview, certain claims considered suitable for accelerated handling will be dealt with through a single interview process. The objective is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and allow scarce case-working resources to be focused on more complex claims.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted the concerns raised by external organisations that this represents a significant change to asylum procedures and may reduce fairness for applicants. Yet the Home Office has been equally clear that claimants will continue to have the opportunity to explain the basis of their claim, provide evidence, seek legal advice and submit further representations before decisions are taken. It said that where indicators of vulnerability, trafficking, safeguarding concerns or indeed complexity emerge
“the case will be removed from the Merged Registration process and routed into the standard asylum process”.
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend the Minister, but I do not think that I was clear enough in putting the question. Regarding what is meant by “in-country”, I am not suggesting that we are talking about people who try to claim asylum from somewhere else, because I am aware that that is not possible. The question is: when someone arrives on, say, a small boat, could they be shunted immediately into this process? Or are we talking about people who are already in the country, having been here a few days or whatever? That is the distinction I was trying to make—not the one that I think my noble friend understood me to be making.
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.