Lords Grand Committee
Tuesday 27th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords. Firstly, may I apologise that you have the B team? I think, as we're referring today, Baroness Whitecross has unfortunately taken ill and I am sure on behalf of the committee, we will be sending her best wishes. My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee consider the Enterprise Act 2002. Specification of additional section 58 consideration order 26. Telecommunication 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 for emergency services, ambulance and hospital communications, and medical alarms.
The government has 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, the 5th of October, BT Group plc announced it had acquired TalkTalk Telecom Group out of administration. As has been widely reported, had been seeking a buyer for its consumer and wholesale businesses for some time, but no deal was reached. Given the risk that the disconnection of Talktalk's customers could put lives at risk and disrupt the continuity of the supply of telecommunications.
On the 5th of October, the Secretary of State issued a public interest intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002 under the Enterprise Act, 2002. 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, which 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 of the Secretary of State specified in the Public Interest Intervention Notice of the 5th of October were the need to maintain the UK in the UK, the capability to combat and to mitigate the effect of public health emergencies and the need to maintain the UK. 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 telecommunication services is a new consideration, which the Secretary of State believes ought to be specified by 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 telecommunication services. This would include considerations around maintaining critical national infrastructure connections and the impacts on society and the economy from widespread or significant prolonged activity disruption, such 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 that rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communication 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 on maintaining the stability of the UK financial system was introduced for the Lloyds TSB 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 BT TalkTalk merger is driven by serious concerns that there could be sudden disruption to vital broadband services affecting millions of people.
God bless you. Thank you. The government has 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 wider risks of 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 has provided on the 19th of October this year, the Secretary of State will consider the Competition and Market 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 be, or to clear the transaction without any further investigation. The government is 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, which has supported significant commercial investment in fibre broadband across the UK. My Lords, 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 disruption to telecommunication 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 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. My Lords, I beg to move.
The government has 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, the 5th of October, BT Group plc announced it had acquired TalkTalk Telecom Group out of administration. As has been widely reported, had been seeking a buyer for its consumer and wholesale businesses for some time, but no deal was reached. Given the risk that the disconnection of Talktalk's customers could put lives at risk and disrupt the continuity of the supply of telecommunications.
On the 5th of October, the Secretary of State issued a public interest intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002 under the Enterprise Act, 2002. 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, which 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 of the Secretary of State specified in the Public Interest Intervention Notice of the 5th of October were the need to maintain the UK in the UK, the capability to combat and to mitigate the effect of public health emergencies and the need to maintain the UK. 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 telecommunication services is a new consideration, which the Secretary of State believes ought to be specified by 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 telecommunication services. This would include considerations around maintaining critical national infrastructure connections and the impacts on society and the economy from widespread or significant prolonged activity disruption, such 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 that rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communication 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 on maintaining the stability of the UK financial system was introduced for the Lloyds TSB 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 BT TalkTalk merger is driven by serious concerns that there could be sudden disruption to vital broadband services affecting millions of people.
God bless you. Thank you. The government has 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 wider risks of 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 has provided on the 19th of October this year, the Secretary of State will consider the Competition and Market 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 be, or to clear the transaction without any further investigation. The government is 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, which has supported significant commercial investment in fibre broadband across the UK. My Lords, 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 disruption to telecommunication 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 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. My Lords, I beg to move.
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that the Grand Committee do consider this instrument. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble lady, 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. I'm sorry to say I have a. If these things are a minority sport, I've been playing it a long time since I was on the Standing Committee of the Enterprise Act 2002 , and was also around when we put the news media and others in under the Communications Act into the specified considerations, and I think I probably participated in the debates in 2020, putting public health into amongst the specified considerations.
And actually, of course, this is a short debate with a limited number of participants. But actually it was quite an important debate, not least the specified considerations being added in the past has been always been regarded as a significant step that we should consider very carefully. So this this order, when putting this issue into the specified considerations, where the Public Interest Intervention Notice can be issued, is a recognition of the importance of the objective things like emergency calls, hospital communications, medical alarms, the activities of businesses dependent upon reliable connectivity are all important, and we must protect those services.
And indeed, I think the particular point of this is to protect vulnerable customers. But the order also extends ministerial discretion within merger control. We should, I think, 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 upon 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 talk talk to other providers, but whose services still depend upon its network.
Those are serious risks. Nevertheless, customers also have a lasting interest in effective competition choice. Their prices, innovation and investment. The acquisition of a competitor by a dominant operator requires proper examination, even when the circumstances demand urgency. I'm not asking the minister to prejudge the Competition and Markets Authority's conclusions. Indeed, we don't know what the competition and markets authorities conclusions are. The letter was delivered on the 19th of October in the afternoon. It has not yet been published, but I am 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 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 just brings me to the alternative approach, which I referred to on the 17th of March this year during Ofcom's analyst and investor call, Natalie Black, who is Ofcom's group director for infrastructure and connectivity, stated, quote, we do not have a special administration regime in the UK. End quote. She described arrangements for protecting consumers in cooperation with the department, but of course there. But 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. Telecommunications has industry arrangements they describe as supplier of last resort. The published process relies upon best efforts by upstream providers, envisages eventual disconnection and would be superseded by administration. It does not therefore provide statutory customer allocation as in the water industry case. So should we consider a framework allowing 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 accepting what might potentially be lasting competition harm.
A statutory special administration regime could therefore address both problems maintaining essential services during failure and ensuring that customers could be transferred in an orderly manner if the business could not be saved. Now, such a regime would require legislation. It would require appropriate funding arrangements and design. The government could, in the first instance, however, establish which elements Ofcom could introduce under its existing powers and which would require 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 if regulators time to identify alternative purchasers, enable orderly customer transfers and ensure that competition remedies were properly tested before any acquisition was approved. So I would ask the minister really to respond on four points first, to confirm that the government will treat effective Competition and Markets Authority competition remedies as a priority objective and will depart from them only where the Secretary of State publishes a clear explanation of the continuity risk and why a pro-competitive option would not suffice. Secondly, to ensure that the CMA's report on the BT and TalkTalk transaction, subject to necessary confidentiality protections, is made available to Parliament promptly.
I would have liked to have read it before we had this debate, but clearly that has not happened together and to see that, together with the government's response and the reasons for any decision affecting competition. Third, to require that any undertakings accepted in the public interest contain precise obligations, independent monitoring and meaningful and meaningful consequences for breach, including protections for wholesale customers, resellers and competing providers where necessary. For to review with Ofcom the case for telecommunications Special administration regime, including statutory customer allocation arrangements and to publish their conclusions. The conclusions from such a review, with a timetable for deciding whether legislation is required.
From my point of view, this principle is very straightforward customers should not lose essential services because they provide a fails. But neither should the risk of failure be used to justify a permanent and avoidable weakening of competition. This order should therefore be accompanied by a commitment to build a framework that protects continuity during failure, preserves customer choice, and ensures that any exceptional intervention is transparent, proportionate and consistent with the long term consumer interest in effective competition.
And actually, of course, this is a short debate with a limited number of participants. But actually it was quite an important debate, not least the specified considerations being added in the past has been always been regarded as a significant step that we should consider very carefully. So this this order, when putting this issue into the specified considerations, where the Public Interest Intervention Notice can be issued, is a recognition of the importance of the objective things like emergency calls, hospital communications, medical alarms, the activities of businesses dependent upon reliable connectivity are all important, and we must protect those services.
And indeed, I think the particular point of this is to protect vulnerable customers. But the order also extends ministerial discretion within merger control. We should, I think, 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 upon 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 talk talk to other providers, but whose services still depend upon its network.
Those are serious risks. Nevertheless, customers also have a lasting interest in effective competition choice. Their prices, innovation and investment. The acquisition of a competitor by a dominant operator requires proper examination, even when the circumstances demand urgency. I'm not asking the minister to prejudge the Competition and Markets Authority's conclusions. Indeed, we don't know what the competition and markets authorities conclusions are. The letter was delivered on the 19th of October in the afternoon. It has not yet been published, but I am 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 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 just brings me to the alternative approach, which I referred to on the 17th of March this year during Ofcom's analyst and investor call, Natalie Black, who is Ofcom's group director for infrastructure and connectivity, stated, quote, we do not have a special administration regime in the UK. End quote. She described arrangements for protecting consumers in cooperation with the department, but of course there. But 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. Telecommunications has industry arrangements they describe as supplier of last resort. The published process relies upon best efforts by upstream providers, envisages eventual disconnection and would be superseded by administration. It does not therefore provide statutory customer allocation as in the water industry case. So should we consider a framework allowing 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 accepting what might potentially be lasting competition harm.
A statutory special administration regime could therefore address both problems maintaining essential services during failure and ensuring that customers could be transferred in an orderly manner if the business could not be saved. Now, such a regime would require legislation. It would require appropriate funding arrangements and design. The government could, in the first instance, however, establish which elements Ofcom could introduce under its existing powers and which would require 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 if regulators time to identify alternative purchasers, enable orderly customer transfers and ensure that competition remedies were properly tested before any acquisition was approved. So I would ask the minister really to respond on four points first, to confirm that the government will treat effective Competition and Markets Authority competition remedies as a priority objective and will depart from them only where the Secretary of State publishes a clear explanation of the continuity risk and why a pro-competitive option would not suffice. Secondly, to ensure that the CMA's report on the BT and TalkTalk transaction, subject to necessary confidentiality protections, is made available to Parliament promptly.
I would have liked to have read it before we had this debate, but clearly that has not happened together and to see that, together with the government's response and the reasons for any decision affecting competition. Third, to require that any undertakings accepted in the public interest contain precise obligations, independent monitoring and meaningful and meaningful consequences for breach, including protections for wholesale customers, resellers and competing providers where necessary. For to review with Ofcom the case for telecommunications Special administration regime, including statutory customer allocation arrangements and to publish their conclusions. The conclusions from such a review, with a timetable for deciding whether legislation is required.
From my point of view, this principle is very straightforward customers should not lose essential services because they provide a fails. But neither should the risk of failure be used to justify a permanent and avoidable weakening of competition. This order should therefore be accompanied by a commitment to build a framework that protects continuity during failure, preserves customer choice, and ensures that any exceptional intervention is transparent, proportionate and consistent with the long term consumer interest in effective competition.
16:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, it's always a pleasure to speak in the same debate as Lords Lansley, who's been his normal, comprehensive self, and I think I will be touching on many similar themes with 1 or 2 additional ones. But first of all, I thank the noble Baroness Anderson for introducing this order, and I think we would all hope that Baroness Twycross is quickly recovers and is back in her place. Now, from these benches chairs, we accept that the government faced a real emergency at the start of this month and that it did have 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 a quarter of a million of those customers are vulnerable. Many rely on telecare alarms and monitoring devices that need a working connection. Talk Talk's network also carries traffic, schools, hospitals, emergency care and businesses across the critical. Our critical national infrastructure. A sudden and disorderly collapse was not an option for any responsible government to contemplate, and I'll come back to that issue shortly. So of course, we do not oppose this order, adding the continuity of supply of telecommunications services to the public interest considerations in section in section 58 follows, in our view, a sensible line.
Financial stability was added, as we've heard during the two 2008 crisis and public health emergencies during the pandemic, telecoms is 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 onto the list. But supporting the principle does not mean that waving the order through without scrutiny is a good idea. And I'm going to raise four sets of concerns, some of which touch what we heard from the noble Lord Lansley. But the first is not. And that is process. This order was made at 4:07 on the 12th of October, laid an hour later, and came into force the next day.
The Public Interest Intervention Notice was issued on the 5th of 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, and this was highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and should be noted by this committee. Now I understand why the government acted at speed, but Parliament is now being asked to approve after the event a power that had 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? And will the Minister accept that this way of legislating should be the rare exception and must not become a template, perhaps a unique exception, I would suggest. The second point is competition. And here the noble Lord Lindsay has has touched on 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.
Now, my Lords, this is a very significant power. And here it is being exercised in favour of the incumbent. Or it would be if now, after this acquisition, BT share of the retail broadband market will rise significantly. Openreach, which as we know is BT's open own wholesale arm, is Talktalk's largest supplier. Talktalk's wholesale business platform X serves other providers who now find their supplier owned by their biggest competitor. Rival operators have publicly called this a stitch up and present it as a rescue. Now, 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 the 19th of October, and its contents have not yet been published. So I ask the minister, will the CMA's report be published so that Parliament can see and the market can see the competition analysis. 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 platform X customers, protections for retail prices and choice, and a firm ring fence between Openreach and BT, BT's retail arm, in how TalkTalk customers are treated.
And 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 this order exposes, and here the noble. Again the noble 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 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, my Lords. That is hope. This order treats the 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 buyer is one whose acquisition would do lasting damage to the competition. So will the government commit to consult in this session, in this session, on a special administration regime for systematically important telecoms providers? Will it 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. Fourth is 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 Act Removal Act requirements will be met. The noble Baroness from the ministerial side were not were not in Parliament when we debated this in full, and Parliament's will was very clear that this technology should be removed from from from telecoms supply chain and on drafting.
The new submission to EE 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 digital critical digital infrastructure, rather than one definition in each statute. My Lords, the government acted to prevent real harm to real people and for that it deserves 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 telecoms failure. So the 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.
TalkTalk had about 2.5 million customers after a long and unsuccessful sale process, and it was on the brink of liquidation. Around a quarter of a million of those customers are vulnerable. Many rely on telecare alarms and monitoring devices that need a working connection. Talk Talk's network also carries traffic, schools, hospitals, emergency care and businesses across the critical. Our critical national infrastructure. A sudden and disorderly collapse was not an option for any responsible government to contemplate, and I'll come back to that issue shortly. So of course, we do not oppose this order, adding the continuity of supply of telecommunications services to the public interest considerations in section in section 58 follows, in our view, a sensible line.
Financial stability was added, as we've heard during the two 2008 crisis and public health emergencies during the pandemic, telecoms is 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 onto the list. But supporting the principle does not mean that waving the order through without scrutiny is a good idea. And I'm going to raise four sets of concerns, some of which touch what we heard from the noble Lord Lansley. But the first is not. And that is process. This order was made at 4:07 on the 12th of October, laid an hour later, and came into force the next day.
The Public Interest Intervention Notice was issued on the 5th of 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, and this was highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and should be noted by this committee. Now I understand why the government acted at speed, but Parliament is now being asked to approve after the event a power that had 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? And will the Minister accept that this way of legislating should be the rare exception and must not become a template, perhaps a unique exception, I would suggest. The second point is competition. And here the noble Lord Lindsay has has touched on 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.
Now, my Lords, this is a very significant power. And here it is being exercised in favour of the incumbent. Or it would be if now, after this acquisition, BT share of the retail broadband market will rise significantly. Openreach, which as we know is BT's open own wholesale arm, is Talktalk's largest supplier. Talktalk's wholesale business platform X serves other providers who now find their supplier owned by their biggest competitor. Rival operators have publicly called this a stitch up and present it as a rescue. Now, 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 the 19th of October, and its contents have not yet been published. So I ask the minister, will the CMA's report be published so that Parliament can see and the market can see the competition analysis. 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 platform X customers, protections for retail prices and choice, and a firm ring fence between Openreach and BT, BT's retail arm, in how TalkTalk customers are treated.
And 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 this order exposes, and here the noble. Again the noble 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 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, my Lords. That is hope. This order treats the 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 buyer is one whose acquisition would do lasting damage to the competition. So will the government commit to consult in this session, in this session, on a special administration regime for systematically important telecoms providers? Will it 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. Fourth is 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 Act Removal Act requirements will be met. The noble Baroness from the ministerial side were not were not in Parliament when we debated this in full, and Parliament's will was very clear that this technology should be removed from from from telecoms supply chain and on drafting.
The new submission to EE 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 digital critical digital infrastructure, rather than one definition in each statute. My Lords, the government acted to prevent real harm to real people and for that it deserves 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 telecoms failure. So the 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.
16:09
16:09
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
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. And we wish Lady Twycross well and a speedy recovery. My Lords, this secondary legislation would enable the Secretary of State to take into account a wider range of public interest considerations and deciding on 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, who reported to the Secretary of State on the 19th of October.
And I agree with Lord Lansley and Lord Fox that it is a shame that this report was not available before today's debate. Can the noble Baroness, perhaps the Minister, elaborate on their findings and the next steps, and I to echo Lord Fox's concerns. The Secretary Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this order to the special attention of the House, and I would like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to confirm that this legislation is not retrospective. What will be the implication for existing mergers, and how does the government intend to maintain investor confidence? And I confirm that I am very happy for any of my questions, and there are many to be answered by the noble 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, but can the noble Baroness, 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? This order needs 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 UK, including in particular, disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and the supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable.
Such changes must be tightly defined and the noble Baroness, the Minister, say how such disruption will be measured. And indeed, 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 does this government define and how will they assess the orderly functioning of society? Can the noble Baroness, 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 noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to give the House assurances on these points, even if that is in writing. Thank you.
And I agree with Lord Lansley and Lord Fox that it is a shame that this report was not available before today's debate. Can the noble Baroness, perhaps the Minister, elaborate on their findings and the next steps, and I to echo Lord Fox's concerns. The Secretary Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this order to the special attention of the House, and I would like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to confirm that this legislation is not retrospective. What will be the implication for existing mergers, and how does the government intend to maintain investor confidence? And I confirm that I am very happy for any of my questions, and there are many to be answered by the noble 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, but can the noble Baroness, 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? This order needs 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 UK, including in particular, disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and the supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable.
Such changes must be tightly defined and the noble Baroness, the Minister, say how such disruption will be measured. And indeed, 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 does this government define and how will they assess the orderly functioning of society? Can the noble Baroness, 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 noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to give the House assurances on these points, even if that is in writing. Thank you.
16:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords. I have lots of magic bits of paper, so we'll see how we go. I want to thank noble Lords both for their best wishes for my noble friend, but also for their indulgence at the despatch box on this matter. Obviously, my Lords, I will reflect on Hansard and I will write regarding any points that I have missed, but I hope to be able to give some substantive answers to noble Lords who have initiated. The debate shows a recognition of the importance of telecommunication services to the functioning of modern economy and society of the UK.
It's 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 telecommunication services. In response to the specific point raised, starting with issues of competition concerns and BT increasing their market share as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. My Lords, this is why the Secretary of State has asked the CMA to assess the competition's impact 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 designate, designated on 27th of April this year, highlights that competition in the telecoms market, 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 when necessary. The UK's pro-competition approach has driven fibre rollout, as was referenced by Enable 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 gigabit capable network. With regards to the urgency of the order as raised by the noble Lord Fox and the noble Baroness Lady Bloomfield, in order for the Secretary of State to take the new public interest consideration on the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services into account. As part of their decision, the new consideration has to be added to the Enterprise Act 2002 before a decision is made on the merger.
As the new consideration is not yet specified in the Enterprise Act 2002, it requires the Secretary of State to seek to have that consideration specified in section 58 of the act as soon as practicable. However, we believe this to be a unique exception. With regard to the issues raised by the Sclc, SC, SL, SC, even raised by all participants in the debate. My Lords, this is not a case of retrospective action. The order does not determine the outcome of the merger process. The Enterprise Act 2002 provides the Secretary of State with powers to specify new public interest considerations, including for an accident case, by stating as much in the Public Interest Intervention Notice and therefore seeking to secure the approval of Parliament as soon as practicable.
This is not unprecedented. New public interest considerations have been specified in this matter manner before to address urgent matters. As I said earlier, with regards to the Lloyds TSB Group HBOs merger, the law this order will allow the Secretary of State to provide for careful consideration of telecommunications services supply as part of the overall public interest assessment in the BT TalkTalk merger case. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised an issue with about the precedent for treatment of a future merger. The Secretary of State has taken an exceptional decision to intervene to enable a decision on the BT Group Talk Talk merger, which takes account of both the competition impacts and the public interest.
Given the public health and public interest considerations associated with this merger, this order does not set precedent for treating future mergers arising in the market in the same way it gives the Secretary of State the power to consider competition and public interest concerns where they arise. While no public interest consideration. Where no public interest considerations arise. Responsibility for competition assessment of mergers remains with the CMA as under the act, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a very important point about a framework for administration regime on the statutory administration regime. Going forward, we do consider there is a case for considering further powers for government to intervene in potential future telecoms in order to further protect consumers, and we will reflect on his comments to.
I think I have actually addressed that point on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox on remedies and security considered. While judicial process is ongoing, we are not able to comment on the substance, on the substance of the merger and the specifics of the issues considered. But we have heard the noble Lord with regards to investor confidence. The government is committed to promoting competition and our statement of strategic priorities, as I have said, highlights this. The. The UK consumer benefits from a low mobile cost. I have actually read that out. I will leave that magic paper, but not quite magic.
It's 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 telecommunication services. In response to the specific point raised, starting with issues of competition concerns and BT increasing their market share as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. My Lords, this is why the Secretary of State has asked the CMA to assess the competition's impact 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 designate, designated on 27th of April this year, highlights that competition in the telecoms market, 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 when necessary. The UK's pro-competition approach has driven fibre rollout, as was referenced by Enable 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 gigabit capable network. With regards to the urgency of the order as raised by the noble Lord Fox and the noble Baroness Lady Bloomfield, in order for the Secretary of State to take the new public interest consideration on the continuity of the supply of telecommunications services into account. As part of their decision, the new consideration has to be added to the Enterprise Act 2002 before a decision is made on the merger.
As the new consideration is not yet specified in the Enterprise Act 2002, it requires the Secretary of State to seek to have that consideration specified in section 58 of the act as soon as practicable. However, we believe this to be a unique exception. With regard to the issues raised by the Sclc, SC, SL, SC, even raised by all participants in the debate. My Lords, this is not a case of retrospective action. The order does not determine the outcome of the merger process. The Enterprise Act 2002 provides the Secretary of State with powers to specify new public interest considerations, including for an accident case, by stating as much in the Public Interest Intervention Notice and therefore seeking to secure the approval of Parliament as soon as practicable.
This is not unprecedented. New public interest considerations have been specified in this matter manner before to address urgent matters. As I said earlier, with regards to the Lloyds TSB Group HBOs merger, the law this order will allow the Secretary of State to provide for careful consideration of telecommunications services supply as part of the overall public interest assessment in the BT TalkTalk merger case. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised an issue with about the precedent for treatment of a future merger. The Secretary of State has taken an exceptional decision to intervene to enable a decision on the BT Group Talk Talk merger, which takes account of both the competition impacts and the public interest.
Given the public health and public interest considerations associated with this merger, this order does not set precedent for treating future mergers arising in the market in the same way it gives the Secretary of State the power to consider competition and public interest concerns where they arise. While no public interest consideration. Where no public interest considerations arise. Responsibility for competition assessment of mergers remains with the CMA as under the act, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a very important point about a framework for administration regime on the statutory administration regime. Going forward, we do consider there is a case for considering further powers for government to intervene in potential future telecoms in order to further protect consumers, and we will reflect on his comments to.
I think I have actually addressed that point on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox on remedies and security considered. While judicial process is ongoing, we are not able to comment on the substance, on the substance of the merger and the specifics of the issues considered. But we have heard the noble Lord with regards to investor confidence. The government is committed to promoting competition and our statement of strategic priorities, as I have said, highlights this. The. The UK consumer benefits from a low mobile cost. I have actually read that out. I will leave that magic paper, but not quite magic.
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lord, you were two magic pieces of paper early with regards to . On remedies, I will come back to. I won't. In fact, I'll go straight to the issue raised with regards to 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 they have made a decision as is in line, and I. All noble Lords who raised this, who participated, raised that point. My Lords, I think I've answered the majority of the substantive points. I will reflect on Hansard, and if I haven't, I will write to members of the noble Lords.
And with that, I want to thank everyone that has contributed to this debate today and the officials who have worked on this. And I beg to move.
And with that, I want to thank everyone that has contributed to this debate today and the officials who have worked on this. And I beg to move.
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:19
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
We do with this. We'll go and get that as well. Thank you that you've got to leave. Yeah. I go before you when you end up just put on the record that you were here. Everybody else. Enjoy. It's going to be all right. But. A whispering I can whisper out loud. I'm just worried whether I can stay long enough to take part. And I have to say to the end, if I.
Are you. Thank you.
Are you. Thank you.
16:20
16:20
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. My. Furniture flying. My Lords, before proceeding with this take note motion, I'd like to thank for their help. Freedom from torture, who, together with the Helen Bamber Foundation, have drawn attention to the issues raised by this statement of changes in immigration rules and have since been joined by a number of other expert stakeholder organisations. I should also note the assistance I received from Ramp as listed in the register, and I welcome my noble friend, the Minister, to the asylum brief, which I suspect will keep him pretty busy in the coming months. And I thank noble Lords who've.
Who are attending. I know at least one. 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'm drawing the statement of changes to the House's attention following the SL 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'm glad that the Home Office appears to have taken SL SC'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 the 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. To quote it is precisely in the operational implementation where consultation can often be 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 friends response to them, and whether he accepts the criticism, which clearly has implications for future changes to the rules, and therefore whether he will 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 SL SC was also critical of the fact that the guidance which puts the flesh on the new rules, was not published alongside the statement, so as 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 a default approach for future statements of changes. Once more, I would welcome my noble friend. Response to that should also be noted that while the guidance has now been published, there was again no consultation on it.
Despite a written request to the Home Office from four organisations in the field will at least he agree to the Home Office. Sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders for consultation so they can assess and advise on how effectively it will serve to identify vulnerability and safeguarding concerns. And it is to these substantive concerns I now turn well. I'm sure we all applaud the general attempts to speed up the asylum process. This should not be at the expense of the quality of decision making. I was rather concerned about the Home Office's response to one of the questions.
That said, 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 indeed not be identified, but will be overlooked because the eligibility criteria and case selection process do not clearly exclude cases which raise safeguarding concerns and vulnerability indicators, and these may not be identified during an sbi'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.
And while the guidance does allow for rerouting back into the standard asylum process, it would seem that the onus is on the asylum seeker to make clear any vulnerability during the SPI, but the guidance doesn't make clear what criteria will be applied and how such rerouting would be decided, nor how a claimant will know and understand that possibility. So if my noble friend can clarify, that would be very helpful. And this raises the other main related concern, the search and the Home Office's own earlier guidance identified the many barriers to early disclosure of vulnerability, trauma or sexuality.
Torture survivors can find it very difficult to talk about their experience. Similarly, LGBTQ I. Plus, people often delay in claiming asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics due, among other things, to them feeling unsafe. A history of trauma and lack of understanding of depression. Oppression due to sexual orientation constitutes an accepted ground for asylum. That said, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or are making an LGBTQ plus related claim, would my noble friend give a commitment that they would not be subjected to the SBI process?
Now, this is more likely in the case of an in-country claim, but it is not clear from the guidance whether the SBI process will apply to both in-country and at border claims, though I understand that officials have indicated it would apply only to in-country claimants. So could my noble friend clarify this point, please? And if that is the case, ensure the guidance is amended to make that clear. Now, 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.
While training may have improved since that study, the most recent report of the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on asylum casework was pretty damning on the quality of both training and decision making. So may I ask what, if any, further training is envisaged? A concern raised by the Slsc is whether claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence, such as medical legal reports following the SBI. In fact, this has since been clarified in the guidance, but it's still not clear why it was deleted from the actual rules. Moreover, freedom from torture believes 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'd be grateful for my noble friends thoughts on that. On the general issue of legal representation, the committee reported Home Office's assurance that the availability of legal aid is not affected by the changes, but the sector's experience is that the great majority of asylum seekers only secure a legal representative following the screening interview, and then they often require considerable preparatory work. Truncating the process makes it less likely asylum seekers will get the advice they need in the context of what had been what had been described as legal aid deserts, the importance of the right to legal support in such cases has been emphasised by the UNHCR.
With my noble friend, please explain how the Home Office will ensure effective access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process. Given that legal aid funding is generally not available for screening interviews. My Lords, what this all adds up to is the fear that asylum seekers fleeing trauma, torture, oppression on grounds of sexuality will not be assured. A fair hearing freedom from torture, supported by others, argues that the substantive asylum interview and concurrent evidence submission process is an indispensable part of the asylum system, as it provides people with the opportunity to properly present their claim.
This is particularly the case for claims made on the basis of sexual orientation. It applies even to those coming from manifestly safe countries, who may nevertheless be at risk because of their personal circumstances, a point that's been made in the past by the Joint Committee for Human Rights. The other fear expressed by the sector is that this might be the first step towards wider use of the SPI process. The Home Office told the Slsc that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries. The implication is that it could be extended to further countries and or involve further selection criteria.
Could my noble friend please explain what might be envisaged, but also give a categorical assurance that the welcome exclusion of unaccompanied and age disputed children will continue and will not be qualified in any way? Could he also explain what is proposed with regard to monitoring the new policy? As I've not been able to find any mention of that, and it's important that legal representatives, civil society and people who have lived experience can feed into the process and that there is no extension of the SPI until there is clear published evidence of how it is working.
So again, can he give us an assurance on that? My Lords, apologies that I've gone on at some length, but I wanted to do justice to the concerns raised by the SLC and by freedom from torture and other organisations. This may be a small change in the eyes of the Home Office, but it's one with potentially significant implications for people in vulnerable circumstances and it deserves our scrutiny. I beg to move.
Who are attending. I know at least one. 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'm drawing the statement of changes to the House's attention following the SL 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'm glad that the Home Office appears to have taken SL SC'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 the 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. To quote it is precisely in the operational implementation where consultation can often be 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 friends response to them, and whether he accepts the criticism, which clearly has implications for future changes to the rules, and therefore whether he will 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 SL SC was also critical of the fact that the guidance which puts the flesh on the new rules, was not published alongside the statement, so as 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 a default approach for future statements of changes. Once more, I would welcome my noble friend. Response to that should also be noted that while the guidance has now been published, there was again no consultation on it.
Despite a written request to the Home Office from four organisations in the field will at least he agree to the Home Office. Sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders for consultation so they can assess and advise on how effectively it will serve to identify vulnerability and safeguarding concerns. And it is to these substantive concerns I now turn well. I'm sure we all applaud the general attempts to speed up the asylum process. This should not be at the expense of the quality of decision making. I was rather concerned about the Home Office's response to one of the questions.
That said, 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 indeed not be identified, but will be overlooked because the eligibility criteria and case selection process do not clearly exclude cases which raise safeguarding concerns and vulnerability indicators, and these may not be identified during an sbi'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.
And while the guidance does allow for rerouting back into the standard asylum process, it would seem that the onus is on the asylum seeker to make clear any vulnerability during the SPI, but the guidance doesn't make clear what criteria will be applied and how such rerouting would be decided, nor how a claimant will know and understand that possibility. So if my noble friend can clarify, that would be very helpful. And this raises the other main related concern, the search and the Home Office's own earlier guidance identified the many barriers to early disclosure of vulnerability, trauma or sexuality.
Torture survivors can find it very difficult to talk about their experience. Similarly, LGBTQ I. Plus, people often delay in claiming asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics due, among other things, to them feeling unsafe. A history of trauma and lack of understanding of depression. Oppression due to sexual orientation constitutes an accepted ground for asylum. That said, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or are making an LGBTQ plus related claim, would my noble friend give a commitment that they would not be subjected to the SBI process?
Now, this is more likely in the case of an in-country claim, but it is not clear from the guidance whether the SBI process will apply to both in-country and at border claims, though I understand that officials have indicated it would apply only to in-country claimants. So could my noble friend clarify this point, please? And if that is the case, ensure the guidance is amended to make that clear. Now, 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.
While training may have improved since that study, the most recent report of the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on asylum casework was pretty damning on the quality of both training and decision making. So may I ask what, if any, further training is envisaged? A concern raised by the Slsc is whether claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence, such as medical legal reports following the SBI. In fact, this has since been clarified in the guidance, but it's still not clear why it was deleted from the actual rules. Moreover, freedom from torture believes 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'd be grateful for my noble friends thoughts on that. On the general issue of legal representation, the committee reported Home Office's assurance that the availability of legal aid is not affected by the changes, but the sector's experience is that the great majority of asylum seekers only secure a legal representative following the screening interview, and then they often require considerable preparatory work. Truncating the process makes it less likely asylum seekers will get the advice they need in the context of what had been what had been described as legal aid deserts, the importance of the right to legal support in such cases has been emphasised by the UNHCR.
With my noble friend, please explain how the Home Office will ensure effective access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process. Given that legal aid funding is generally not available for screening interviews. My Lords, what this all adds up to is the fear that asylum seekers fleeing trauma, torture, oppression on grounds of sexuality will not be assured. A fair hearing freedom from torture, supported by others, argues that the substantive asylum interview and concurrent evidence submission process is an indispensable part of the asylum system, as it provides people with the opportunity to properly present their claim.
This is particularly the case for claims made on the basis of sexual orientation. It applies even to those coming from manifestly safe countries, who may nevertheless be at risk because of their personal circumstances, a point that's been made in the past by the Joint Committee for Human Rights. The other fear expressed by the sector is that this might be the first step towards wider use of the SPI process. The Home Office told the Slsc that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries. The implication is that it could be extended to further countries and or involve further selection criteria.
Could my noble friend please explain what might be envisaged, but also give a categorical assurance that the welcome exclusion of unaccompanied and age disputed children will continue and will not be qualified in any way? Could he also explain what is proposed with regard to monitoring the new policy? As I've not been able to find any mention of that, and it's important that legal representatives, civil society and people who have lived experience can feed into the process and that there is no extension of the SPI until there is clear published evidence of how it is working.
So again, can he give us an assurance on that? My Lords, apologies that I've gone on at some length, but I wanted to do justice to the concerns raised by the SLC and by freedom from torture and other organisations. This may be a small change in the eyes of the Home Office, but it's one with potentially significant implications for people in vulnerable circumstances and it deserves our scrutiny. I beg to move.
16:33
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I want to begin by acknowledging the support that I've received as one of their principals from ramp, and I'd like to thank Baroness Lister for creating this important opportunity to take note and discuss the government's new single protection interview process, introduced through the statement of changes to the immigration rules. I acknowledge that procedural changes will often need to be facilitated through secondary legislation, but the nature of the changes before us raised substantial questions, which I'm pleased can now be explored with ministers in this House. Organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture have argued that the changes represent a substantial shift in procedure, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted, and therefore it seems appropriate that the time is allocated for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
This is particularly pertinent if the government wishes, at a future date, to expand the use of a single protection interview. I wonder, can the noble Lord, 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 Baroness Lister has said, speed must not come at the expense of fairness.
Other government confidence that the new process will be able reliably to distinguish an unfounded claim from a genuine one that hasn't yet been fully understood, and where additional information 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'm right in my understanding that the government has confirmed that applicants will retain the right to submit further information, why then remove the rule's explicit guarantee of that right? The SBI 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, no 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, they'll 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 noble Lord, the minister, provide further information on how suitability decisions will be made and how applicants can challenge inclusion in the process? The Home Office recognised 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's also important to remember that even if the 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, isn't 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'm not suggesting I want to be clear that every SPI decision may be unlawful, but I am urging the government to commit to further parliamentary scrutiny and to consultation with expert stakeholders and publication of evaluation data ahead of removing the procedural safeguard of an additional interview from other groups and for other purposes. The government is right to want to resolve clearly unfounded claims quickly, to reduce delays and to avoid keeping people in prolonged uncertainty. The policy guidance does allow for further investigation and interviews where necessary, which is, of course, welcome. The issue is whether in practice those safeguards will work consistently or not.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, the minister, whether interviewers will be trained to recognise trauma, vulnerabilities and inconsistencies that may have legitimate explanations. Also, will there be a clearly applied process for transferring a case ? In transferring a case to the usual process? I do appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all of the questions that I've asked today, but I would be grateful if he could commit to write. My Lords, the measure of an asylum system is not simply how quickly it can refuse a claim, but how reliably it can recognise a person who genuinely needs protection.
A fair system must be capable of refusing unfounded claims, but it must also be capable of recognizing 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've asked are in an effort to try to understand whether the new process has sufficient safeguards to distinguish effectively between the two, where the consequences of error may be, 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.
This is particularly pertinent if the government wishes, at a future date, to expand the use of a single protection interview. I wonder, can the noble Lord, 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 Baroness Lister has said, speed must not come at the expense of fairness.
Other government confidence that the new process will be able reliably to distinguish an unfounded claim from a genuine one that hasn't yet been fully understood, and where additional information 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'm right in my understanding that the government has confirmed that applicants will retain the right to submit further information, why then remove the rule's explicit guarantee of that right? The SBI 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, no 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, they'll 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 noble Lord, the minister, provide further information on how suitability decisions will be made and how applicants can challenge inclusion in the process? The Home Office recognised 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's also important to remember that even if the 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, isn't 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'm not suggesting I want to be clear that every SPI decision may be unlawful, but I am urging the government to commit to further parliamentary scrutiny and to consultation with expert stakeholders and publication of evaluation data ahead of removing the procedural safeguard of an additional interview from other groups and for other purposes. The government is right to want to resolve clearly unfounded claims quickly, to reduce delays and to avoid keeping people in prolonged uncertainty. The policy guidance does allow for further investigation and interviews where necessary, which is, of course, welcome. The issue is whether in practice those safeguards will work consistently or not.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, the minister, whether interviewers will be trained to recognise trauma, vulnerabilities and inconsistencies that may have legitimate explanations. Also, will there be a clearly applied process for transferring a case ? In transferring a case to the usual process? I do appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all of the questions that I've asked today, but I would be grateful if he could commit to write. My Lords, the measure of an asylum system is not simply how quickly it can refuse a claim, but how reliably it can recognise a person who genuinely needs protection.
A fair system must be capable of refusing unfounded claims, but it must also be capable of recognizing 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've asked are in an effort to try to understand whether the new process has sufficient safeguards to distinguish effectively between the two, where the consequences of error may be, 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.
16:41
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow two such powerful, caring speeches focused on our asylum system justice system, which is, after all, in many cases , addressing issues of life and death. I agree virtually everything both of the noble ladies said. So what I will seek to do is, rather than repeat what's been said, to add a couple of points to it. We are talking and focusing on the fact that we are talking about people whose lives all too often been marked by torture, by trauma, by abuse and other suffering, and that it is difficult for them to just sit down and talk about that.
That's the reality. But on on the almost always agreeing, the noble lady, Baroness Lister, described a lot of the language and the process here as rather Orwellian. I'm going to take away the rather because, as indeed I think , does our own secondary legislation. Scrutiny committee in paragraph four of its report, it reflects on the term urged registration. So this is one interview covering the registration, the screening of the individual and the establishment and assessment of the basis of the claim. Now it the committee says the term registration does not accurately describe what the process will encompass.
And we think about people, again, English very often as a second language. Really confusing situation, couldn't we? A direct question to the noble Lord, the minister, couldn't we at least call this something that's immediately understandable if it was to be in translation? And I note that the committee says the Home Office may wish to consider a more helpful, descriptive and easier to understand name. Is the government taking that on board now? I think the noble lady, Baroness Lister, referred to what is a really important report in the context of what we're debating now, the June 2026 independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which concluded, and it's worth revisiting that conclusion the quality of decision making in the asylum system has declined to unacceptable level, and it focuses particularly on the problems of staff hiring, the appropriateness of the way in which staff are hired and who is hired, and the retention challenges for .
In ten decision makers left between April 24th and May 25th, and the decision makers have typically only been in position for 11 months. So again, a direct question to the noble Lord, the minister. Will this just simply be a cab rank system? Will people using this process just be whoever's the next in the queue, or will, if this system is going to be used, will it be applied to more experienced, hopefully more skilled and knowledgeable staff who've had the chance to actually have the experience of seeing claims previously? Now, I also want to express concern about the focus on the express, the government's intention to simply focus on a small number of countries, and I'm going to anonymize this quite heavily because I don't know the situation of the individual concern now, but I think some years ago I met an individual, a woman in Bristol, who spoke to me, and 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 and powerful family on the Indian subcontinent, and she feared for her life if she was forced to go back to her home country.
Now, that's not a country issue. But as the noble lady Baroness Lister said, individuals may indeed be in a position of genuine fear of persecution in those kind of circumstances and to know that and understand that and be able to read a person's explanation, that's really a complex thing. There's one more question I wanted to put to the noble Lord, the minister, and I note that the Home Office, speaking to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, said that it expected between 400 and 600 cases per year would be eligible for this process. And this, of course, compares to about 128,000 people receiving initial asylum decisions in March 2026.
So what savings does the government actually expect? Because it's hard to see what reasons, other than cost savings this would be being implemented, what savings does the government expect to be made from this change, and doesn't it is it not concerned that there will actually be costs down the line if bad decisions are made, both human costs, but also financial costs . ?
That's the reality. But on on the almost always agreeing, the noble lady, Baroness Lister, described a lot of the language and the process here as rather Orwellian. I'm going to take away the rather because, as indeed I think , does our own secondary legislation. Scrutiny committee in paragraph four of its report, it reflects on the term urged registration. So this is one interview covering the registration, the screening of the individual and the establishment and assessment of the basis of the claim. Now it the committee says the term registration does not accurately describe what the process will encompass.
And we think about people, again, English very often as a second language. Really confusing situation, couldn't we? A direct question to the noble Lord, the minister, couldn't we at least call this something that's immediately understandable if it was to be in translation? And I note that the committee says the Home Office may wish to consider a more helpful, descriptive and easier to understand name. Is the government taking that on board now? I think the noble lady, Baroness Lister, referred to what is a really important report in the context of what we're debating now, the June 2026 independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which concluded, and it's worth revisiting that conclusion the quality of decision making in the asylum system has declined to unacceptable level, and it focuses particularly on the problems of staff hiring, the appropriateness of the way in which staff are hired and who is hired, and the retention challenges for .
In ten decision makers left between April 24th and May 25th, and the decision makers have typically only been in position for 11 months. So again, a direct question to the noble Lord, the minister. Will this just simply be a cab rank system? Will people using this process just be whoever's the next in the queue, or will, if this system is going to be used, will it be applied to more experienced, hopefully more skilled and knowledgeable staff who've had the chance to actually have the experience of seeing claims previously? Now, I also want to express concern about the focus on the express, the government's intention to simply focus on a small number of countries, and I'm going to anonymize this quite heavily because I don't know the situation of the individual concern now, but I think some years ago I met an individual, a woman in Bristol, who spoke to me, and 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 and powerful family on the Indian subcontinent, and she feared for her life if she was forced to go back to her home country.
Now, that's not a country issue. But as the noble lady Baroness Lister said, individuals may indeed be in a position of genuine fear of persecution in those kind of circumstances and to know that and understand that and be able to read a person's explanation, that's really a complex thing. There's one more question I wanted to put to the noble Lord, the minister, and I note that the Home Office, speaking to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, said that it expected between 400 and 600 cases per year would be eligible for this process. And this, of course, compares to about 128,000 people receiving initial asylum decisions in March 2026.
So what savings does the government actually expect? Because it's hard to see what reasons, other than cost savings this would be being implemented, what savings does the government expect to be made from this change, and doesn't it is it not concerned that there will actually be costs down the line if bad decisions are made, both human costs, but also financial costs . ?
16:46
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
In my Lords, can I first of all declare my interest like others, the term I am helped and supported by the organisation and also, can I thank those who've already spoken , because it's quite clear there are a huge number of remarks and questions which have been addressed to the Minister, and in that context, I welcome the new minister. He may not be as happy as he may want to be in this particular role, because it is one which, of course , causes great controversy within our House, and certainly one where where there are an enormous number of issues which need to be raised and dealt with and where we expect to find answers from the Home Office, where sometimes they are lacking.
I'd like to thank, as I say, everyone who's spoken so far, I have spent in the past three years as a member of the second Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I think I'm able to recognise an accelerating report when I see one. And this clearly is such a report. It is not often that the Committee goes to such lengths to make such important points , where it doesn't get answers from the Department concerned. The challenge is that the committee itself will address its concerns back to the Home Department and will get answers from them. And if it doesn't get the answers, they'll be in the report.
And where it doesn't find that the answers are sufficient, it also mentions them. This report does that, and members of this House are, on all sides, have said clearly that there are questions which need to be raised and questions that need to be answered. As a result. I am glad that the that the changed name. There's a difference between merging and. Of course, when you merge things, you merge. You perhaps supposed to do the merger meaning turn, but it clearly was a suitable title and I'm glad that it's been changed to. Even though it now presents.
And perhaps the same critique and the same problems that the original title suggested. Anyway, one of the, I think, challenges which we face in addressing these issues in this in this changed piece of guidance and legislation, is whether it is a minor change or a major change. I draw upon my musical experience here. Things which are minor are usually sad, and things which are major are things from which we can judge , and in a more content manner. And quite clearly, this is not something in my view, which can be treated as being of a minor nature.
The deletion of the words which are in paragraph, I think, 13 or no. They're also in paragraph ten of the report. These words were deleted. Where the personal interview is omitted, the applicant independent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit further information. Now that sentence was deleted, and it suggested applicants may not be able to suspend the decision making process to seek expert advice. So the major change here is an operational change.
By bringing together two systems in order to be able to try and shorten the process for a small number of cases. So we are assured it was, of course, against that background that the principle of what we do in this country and the way we address the issues about where people need protection
I'd like to thank, as I say, everyone who's spoken so far, I have spent in the past three years as a member of the second Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I think I'm able to recognise an accelerating report when I see one. And this clearly is such a report. It is not often that the Committee goes to such lengths to make such important points , where it doesn't get answers from the Department concerned. The challenge is that the committee itself will address its concerns back to the Home Department and will get answers from them. And if it doesn't get the answers, they'll be in the report.
And where it doesn't find that the answers are sufficient, it also mentions them. This report does that, and members of this House are, on all sides, have said clearly that there are questions which need to be raised and questions that need to be answered. As a result. I am glad that the that the changed name. There's a difference between merging and. Of course, when you merge things, you merge. You perhaps supposed to do the merger meaning turn, but it clearly was a suitable title and I'm glad that it's been changed to. Even though it now presents.
And perhaps the same critique and the same problems that the original title suggested. Anyway, one of the, I think, challenges which we face in addressing these issues in this in this changed piece of guidance and legislation, is whether it is a minor change or a major change. I draw upon my musical experience here. Things which are minor are usually sad, and things which are major are things from which we can judge , and in a more content manner. And quite clearly, this is not something in my view, which can be treated as being of a minor nature.
The deletion of the words which are in paragraph, I think, 13 or no. They're also in paragraph ten of the report. These words were deleted. Where the personal interview is omitted, the applicant independent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit further information. Now that sentence was deleted, and it suggested applicants may not be able to suspend the decision making process to seek expert advice. So the major change here is an operational change.
By bringing together two systems in order to be able to try and shorten the process for a small number of cases. So we are assured it was, of course, against that background that the principle of what we do in this country and the way we address the issues about where people need protection
16:50
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Principle of what we do in this country and the way we address the issues about where people need protection are individualized. They are not part of cohorts. They're not to be treated as part of some system, systemically makes things easier. Every case deserves to be looked at on its merit. The individuality of assessments is something which is not just present in this country, but of course, across the whole of Europe as well. Though sometimes we have to pull those changes up and look at them in a critical way as well. So when you put together two systems and you try to make and you remove the sentence and you've made this an operational change, which is an operational change of some significance, because you are reducing the opportunity of individual individual assessment.
It is right that people around this chamber have asked, 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 forms of of mental problem that comes with the journeys that they've been on? When people are faced with life or death decisions about what they do and leave from in a traumatic state, it doesn't improve just because you arrive here, because your nervousness, your understanding of what's going to happen to you. All of those things are matters which which need to be, need to be addressed.
And that's why a personalised individual assessment is is so important. The problem with with what we've got before us is that, of course it wasn't having didn't have consultation, even with the government's own supported consultative body, it was it brought them in with the intent of just speeding up the process. It didn't have an impact assessment because the government maintains that it is a minor change rather than a major change, and I still maintain that the operational aspects are entirely different from what they were before. For people who are going through this system, the nature of the operation is now entirely different, where there would be a process by which people's cases would be individually understood.
And finally, as the report says, we ask that's what our the House has asked for is that when you produce legislation of this sort where you make changes to rules of this sort, you should produce the draft guidance alongside it so that we can judge whether the rules are being adjusted for a purpose, which is which is actually accurate, or rather one of simplicity, which is what I think the original intention was. So I hope the noble Lord, the minister, will be able to tell us in replying whether it will be the practice of the Home Department in future when changes are made to the immigration rules, which are of a major or can be interpreted even of as being of a major nature, that all three things will happen a consultation, exercise, an impact assessment and of course guidance which may mean draft, but certainly would help us to make decisions about these matters.
I would like to just talk about the trouble with shortcuts. You know, if you take a shortcut journey and you, you, you get a back lane instead of going down the main road. Or sometimes shortcuts can lead to barbed wire where the roads are closed at the bottom end or where it's dangerous to proceed. So shortcuts should only be taken if you know what the end is. You want to know where the where the route at the end is clear or not. And that's particularly relevant here because that's the process we're talking about. This is a shortcut which has not yet determined whether the right end product is there and available.
And the problem with changes, which allegedly relates to a particular group of people, is that without definition, we are left blank as to whether these people will be were worse off than they were before, and whether the cohort decision will actually blanket the approval or disapproval because of, of situations which are, which are not, not of their making. So there are a lot of strong messages to the home department in this debate and in the secondary legislation reports. And I hope the noble Lord, the minister, has listened and heard and will act on all those matters.
I want to raise one final matter, which is in the changes of immigration rules, and it's one which a particular case, which I was dealing with with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and I have succeeded now in getting the approval of the two people concerned in order to be able to take this matter further forward. But I raise it in the question which is related to in the immigration rules, as people as religious occupations. Now, the the case I was referring to is two nuns from Lesotho who were seeking to come to stay with an order in Humberside.
They were being, of course, looked after by that same order that they belong to. They were going to come and spend time with them, and I don't reckon that was a religious occupation. I reckon it was religious certainty and and and and confidence they were, they were building and being helped, but they failed at the border, not because they hadn't got their appropriate visas. They failed at the border because of money, because they couldn't determine how much money they would need in order to look after themselves in the United Kingdom. And of course, the answer to that is, of course, that holy orders and religious communities, particularly these this particular religious community, they have communal, communal funds, communal meaning, communal, worldwide, not communal in their in the area they're in.
So the fact that they were being treated inverted commas to a break, a stay with other, you know, another community of nuns in in in Merseyside was denied to them because they didn't have the money in their pocket. Now, these two nuns come from Lesotho, which is if anybody's been there, it's one of the poorest countries in Africa. And, and it is. And I declare my interest. I am the honorary consul for the Kingdom of Lesotho in Wales. But it is a matter of some importance to me that when we come to dealing with these issues that are related to the immigration rules, we have to 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. So in conclusion, I think that what we do need, and I suspect that's what everybody in this room would like, that we need a fair system in a in a world where people's decisions to come to this country for protection are matters of life and death for them, and we need to ensure that they are protected properly. So I do hope the noble Lord, the minister, will take all these points on board and will make sure that the Home Department behaves, as this document says, in the appropriate manner for what I regard as being a major change.
It is right that people around this chamber have asked, 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 forms of of mental problem that comes with the journeys that they've been on? When people are faced with life or death decisions about what they do and leave from in a traumatic state, it doesn't improve just because you arrive here, because your nervousness, your understanding of what's going to happen to you. All of those things are matters which which need to be, need to be addressed.
And that's why a personalised individual assessment is is so important. The problem with with what we've got before us is that, of course it wasn't having didn't have consultation, even with the government's own supported consultative body, it was it brought them in with the intent of just speeding up the process. It didn't have an impact assessment because the government maintains that it is a minor change rather than a major change, and I still maintain that the operational aspects are entirely different from what they were before. For people who are going through this system, the nature of the operation is now entirely different, where there would be a process by which people's cases would be individually understood.
And finally, as the report says, we ask that's what our the House has asked for is that when you produce legislation of this sort where you make changes to rules of this sort, you should produce the draft guidance alongside it so that we can judge whether the rules are being adjusted for a purpose, which is which is actually accurate, or rather one of simplicity, which is what I think the original intention was. So I hope the noble Lord, the minister, will be able to tell us in replying whether it will be the practice of the Home Department in future when changes are made to the immigration rules, which are of a major or can be interpreted even of as being of a major nature, that all three things will happen a consultation, exercise, an impact assessment and of course guidance which may mean draft, but certainly would help us to make decisions about these matters.
I would like to just talk about the trouble with shortcuts. You know, if you take a shortcut journey and you, you, you get a back lane instead of going down the main road. Or sometimes shortcuts can lead to barbed wire where the roads are closed at the bottom end or where it's dangerous to proceed. So shortcuts should only be taken if you know what the end is. You want to know where the where the route at the end is clear or not. And that's particularly relevant here because that's the process we're talking about. This is a shortcut which has not yet determined whether the right end product is there and available.
And the problem with changes, which allegedly relates to a particular group of people, is that without definition, we are left blank as to whether these people will be were worse off than they were before, and whether the cohort decision will actually blanket the approval or disapproval because of, of situations which are, which are not, not of their making. So there are a lot of strong messages to the home department in this debate and in the secondary legislation reports. And I hope the noble Lord, the minister, has listened and heard and will act on all those matters.
I want to raise one final matter, which is in the changes of immigration rules, and it's one which a particular case, which I was dealing with with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and I have succeeded now in getting the approval of the two people concerned in order to be able to take this matter further forward. But I raise it in the question which is related to in the immigration rules, as people as religious occupations. Now, the the case I was referring to is two nuns from Lesotho who were seeking to come to stay with an order in Humberside.
They were being, of course, looked after by that same order that they belong to. They were going to come and spend time with them, and I don't reckon that was a religious occupation. I reckon it was religious certainty and and and and confidence they were, they were building and being helped, but they failed at the border, not because they hadn't got their appropriate visas. They failed at the border because of money, because they couldn't determine how much money they would need in order to look after themselves in the United Kingdom. And of course, the answer to that is, of course, that holy orders and religious communities, particularly these this particular religious community, they have communal, communal funds, communal meaning, communal, worldwide, not communal in their in the area they're in.
So the fact that they were being treated inverted commas to a break, a stay with other, you know, another community of nuns in in in Merseyside was denied to them because they didn't have the money in their pocket. Now, these two nuns come from Lesotho, which is if anybody's been there, it's one of the poorest countries in Africa. And, and it is. And I declare my interest. I am the honorary consul for the Kingdom of Lesotho in Wales. But it is a matter of some importance to me that when we come to dealing with these issues that are related to the immigration rules, we have to 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. So in conclusion, I think that what we do need, and I suspect that's what everybody in this room would like, that we need a fair system in a in a world where people's decisions to come to this country for protection are matters of life and death for them, and we need to ensure that they are protected properly. So I do hope the noble Lord, the minister, will take all these points on board and will make sure that the Home Department behaves, as this document says, in the appropriate manner for what I regard as being a major change.
16:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I think this is the first proper opportunity that I've had to welcome the noble Lord, the Minister, to his new role, and I very much look forward to working with him in the future. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Butter, for this opportunity to debate the changes to the immigration rules, and I'm equally grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration. As always, when I respect the concerns that have been expressed, I believe it's 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 changes. 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 substantive interview, certain claims considered suitable for accelerated handling will be dealt with through a single interview process, and the objective is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and allow scarce, scarce, 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 and where indicators of vulnerability, trafficking, safeguarding concerns or indeed complexity emerge. The case will be removed from the merge registration route and transferred into the standard standard asylum process. So much of the criticism appears to proceed from the assumption that individuals will somehow be rushed through the process without safeguards, but the the Home Office evidence to the committee explicitly, explicitly states that vulnerability and safeguarding considerations remain central to decision making and that the process will be reserved for a narrowly defined cohort of cases.
Indeed, the government estimates that only around 400 to 600 cases per year will be eligible for the new process, compared with around 128,000 initial asylum decisions annually. So the committee itself accepted that this represents only a very small proportion of the overall asylum system, so it is therefore difficult to sustain the argument that this reform somehow represents a wholesale transformation of Britain's asylum framework. My Lords, more fundamentally, the entire premise of the debate we are having today is flawed. It repurposes the presupposes sorry, that those people who will be affected by these changes should be able to make their case for asylum, and takes that as an accepted fact.
However, that assumption is not an accepted fact. I do not agree, and my party certainly does not agree that those individuals should even have the opportunity to make their case to the Home Secretary, where any person has illegally entered our country, they should not be given the opportunity to claim asylum or any form of protected protection status, and after their claims have been automatically denied, they should be reported as soon as possible. And that is the only way to secure our borders and stop illegal migration. Therefore, I would argue that contrary to the claims of the the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the noble Baroness indeed, Lady Lister, that this minor procedural reform, targeted at a small number of claims from countries generally regarded as safe, is the absolute bare minimum.
So whilst I do support the government making these changes, insofar as it might speed up the deportation of those who have no right to be in this country, it goes nowhere near far enough. Even the Home Office acknowledges that its purpose is not by itself to address wider pressures in the asylum system. The truth is that Britain still requires much stronger action to restore control of immigration, strengthen enforcement, accelerate the removal of those with no right to remain, and ensure that migration policy serves the national interest. Procedural efficiency efficiencies are welcome, but they are no substitute for a comprehensive strategy that includes, and that includes, leaving the EC, banning asylum claims for illegal migrants, and deporting anyone who attempts to enter unlawfully.
My Lords, I do not share the alarm expressed by some critics of these changes. I have to say, neither can I congratulate the government on having solved the problem. Thank you.
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 changes. 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 substantive interview, certain claims considered suitable for accelerated handling will be dealt with through a single interview process, and the objective is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and allow scarce, scarce, 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 and where indicators of vulnerability, trafficking, safeguarding concerns or indeed complexity emerge. The case will be removed from the merge registration route and transferred into the standard standard asylum process. So much of the criticism appears to proceed from the assumption that individuals will somehow be rushed through the process without safeguards, but the the Home Office evidence to the committee explicitly, explicitly states that vulnerability and safeguarding considerations remain central to decision making and that the process will be reserved for a narrowly defined cohort of cases.
Indeed, the government estimates that only around 400 to 600 cases per year will be eligible for the new process, compared with around 128,000 initial asylum decisions annually. So the committee itself accepted that this represents only a very small proportion of the overall asylum system, so it is therefore difficult to sustain the argument that this reform somehow represents a wholesale transformation of Britain's asylum framework. My Lords, more fundamentally, the entire premise of the debate we are having today is flawed. It repurposes the presupposes sorry, that those people who will be affected by these changes should be able to make their case for asylum, and takes that as an accepted fact.
However, that assumption is not an accepted fact. I do not agree, and my party certainly does not agree that those individuals should even have the opportunity to make their case to the Home Secretary, where any person has illegally entered our country, they should not be given the opportunity to claim asylum or any form of protected protection status, and after their claims have been automatically denied, they should be reported as soon as possible. And that is the only way to secure our borders and stop illegal migration. Therefore, I would argue that contrary to the claims of the the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the noble Baroness indeed, Lady Lister, that this minor procedural reform, targeted at a small number of claims from countries generally regarded as safe, is the absolute bare minimum.
So whilst I do support the government making these changes, insofar as it might speed up the deportation of those who have no right to be in this country, it goes nowhere near far enough. Even the Home Office acknowledges that its purpose is not by itself to address wider pressures in the asylum system. The truth is that Britain still requires much stronger action to restore control of immigration, strengthen enforcement, accelerate the removal of those with no right to remain, and ensure that migration policy serves the national interest. Procedural efficiency efficiencies are welcome, but they are no substitute for a comprehensive strategy that includes, and that includes, leaving the EC, banning asylum claims for illegal migrants, and deporting anyone who attempts to enter unlawfully.
My Lords, I do not share the alarm expressed by some critics of these changes. I have to say, neither can I congratulate the government on having solved the problem. Thank you.
17:03
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate, and I am, of course, grateful to the secondary Legislation Scrutiny Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules. House of Commons 25259. And I'm also grateful for everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon. The government has considered the committee's of observations and concerns raised by external stakeholders carefully and just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davis, I am extremely happy to have this responsibility today. I have got a number of hats, but I'm particularly concerned that people don't sort of see my responsibility as undermining the fairness of the system.
I am absolutely committed to that. And in response to the concerns raised during that scrutiny of the committee and the 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. My Lords, 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.
And the right reverend prelate mentioned the importance, and so did the noble Lord. Lord chairman, the importance of fairness. And I, 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 best in all of us. Because when people think this country is fair, they are more open and generous to others. When we become 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. So our purpose is to create that fairness in our immigration system, holding this country together at a time when others seek to divide us. Concerns have been raised about the introduction of this single protection interview by the external stakeholders. And, of course, the committee. And the purpose of this change is straightforward. Rather than requiring both the screening interview and a substantive interview, in every case, claims are identified as suitable will be considered through a single expanded interview which combines both processes. Importantly, this remains a personal interview as the published guidance makes clear.
Climates claimants interviewed by a trained caseworker are given an opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, provide relevant information and answer questions about their circumstances. This reforms, intended to reduce unnecessary time processing cases where there is no realistic prospect that a further interview with materially changed the outcome. It will allow decision makers to establish the basis of the 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 specific facts of the case before the decision maker.
Now let me turn to the specific questions that Noble Lords asked, and particularly my noble friend asked about the committees, the Secondary Legislation Committee's criticism about lack of consultation, and about 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 secured and refused. Following a single interview conducted when the claim is first made, this 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 stakeholders views.
The to 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, as my noble friend acknowledged, has been published. 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 believed that underlying 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, the single protection interview process. My noble friend asked about in response to the committee that the Home Office should publish draft guidance alongside statements of changes as a default approach. Well, it may not always be possible to publish guidance alongside the statement of changes, but guidance is published prior to or at the, Or at the time of the change being implemented. She also asked about sharing the single The Spy interview script with export stakeholders for consultation, and the single protection interview is an operational process and does not alter the legal test for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification.
Detailed operational guidance has been published and is publicly available on gov.uk, and the Home Office will consider sharing the spy interview script with expert stakeholders as part of the review process, and remain committed to ensuring continuous improvement. The other point was made about how. My noble friend in particular, but also the right. 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 asylum claim may be made where sufficient information has been obtained and no further interviewing or enquiries are required.
Where coming to the point the Right Reverend Prelate made, where additional information, evidence gathering or interviewing is required, the claim must proceed through the standard asylum process and any additional steps, including further interview, where necessary, should be arranged in accordance with the standard procedures. 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. Now, of course, the right Reverend Prelate and my noble friend raised the question about, you know, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or making an LGBT plus related claim and asking for a commitment that this wouldn't be subject to a spy process.
I would like to emphasize that the process only applies, I think, 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. This can, as noble Lords have pointed out, 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 relevant to their claim. As with asylum interview, individuals are given the opportunity to explain the basis of their claim, provide supporting evidence and raise any additional matters they may consider relevant. Published Spy guidance makes clear that before concluding the interview, claimants must be given a reasonable opportunity to raise any further matters relevant to their protection claim. Where information emerges, which requires further exploration, additional evidence gathering, safeguarding activity or further interviewing the case can proceed through the standard asylum 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. And my noble friend asked about does this process only apply? Apply only to in-country claims? Can I say yes that this change applies to those individuals who've sought asylum in the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom does not accept asylum claims from anyone who is outside the United Kingdom. The Refugee Convention contains no obligation for signatory states to consider the claims made outside their territory. Our policy is consistent with the requirement of the convention.
We will not consider asylum claims made abroad, and there is no provision in the immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the United Kingdom to claim asylum. The single protection interview is not part of the process for those who come to the United Kingdom under a resettlement scheme. Instead, the policy concerns the structure of the interview process and does not change the legal test for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification. The Home Office will consider as part of its review what updates may be needed may need to be made to the guidance.
I am absolutely committed to that. And in response to the concerns raised during that scrutiny of the committee and the 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. My Lords, 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.
And the right reverend prelate mentioned the importance, and so did the noble Lord. Lord chairman, the importance of fairness. And I, 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 best in all of us. Because when people think this country is fair, they are more open and generous to others. When we become 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. So our purpose is to create that fairness in our immigration system, holding this country together at a time when others seek to divide us. Concerns have been raised about the introduction of this single protection interview by the external stakeholders. And, of course, the committee. And the purpose of this change is straightforward. Rather than requiring both the screening interview and a substantive interview, in every case, claims are identified as suitable will be considered through a single expanded interview which combines both processes. Importantly, this remains a personal interview as the published guidance makes clear.
Climates claimants interviewed by a trained caseworker are given an opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, provide relevant information and answer questions about their circumstances. This reforms, intended to reduce unnecessary time processing cases where there is no realistic prospect that a further interview with materially changed the outcome. It will allow decision makers to establish the basis of the 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 specific facts of the case before the decision maker.
Now let me turn to the specific questions that Noble Lords asked, and particularly my noble friend asked about the committees, the Secondary Legislation Committee's criticism about lack of consultation, and about 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 secured and refused. Following a single interview conducted when the claim is first made, this 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 stakeholders views.
The to 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, as my noble friend acknowledged, has been published. 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 believed that underlying 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, the single protection interview process. My noble friend asked about in response to the committee that the Home Office should publish draft guidance alongside statements of changes as a default approach. Well, it may not always be possible to publish guidance alongside the statement of changes, but guidance is published prior to or at the, Or at the time of the change being implemented. She also asked about sharing the single The Spy interview script with export stakeholders for consultation, and the single protection interview is an operational process and does not alter the legal test for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification.
Detailed operational guidance has been published and is publicly available on gov.uk, and the Home Office will consider sharing the spy interview script with expert stakeholders as part of the review process, and remain committed to ensuring continuous improvement. The other point was made about how. My noble friend in particular, but also the right. 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 asylum claim may be made where sufficient information has been obtained and no further interviewing or enquiries are required.
Where coming to the point the Right Reverend Prelate made, where additional information, evidence gathering or interviewing is required, the claim must proceed through the standard asylum process and any additional steps, including further interview, where necessary, should be arranged in accordance with the standard procedures. 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. Now, of course, the right Reverend Prelate and my noble friend raised the question about, you know, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or making an LGBT plus related claim and asking for a commitment that this wouldn't be subject to a spy process.
I would like to emphasize that the process only applies, I think, 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. This can, as noble Lords have pointed out, 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 relevant to their claim. As with asylum interview, individuals are given the opportunity to explain the basis of their claim, provide supporting evidence and raise any additional matters they may consider relevant. Published Spy guidance makes clear that before concluding the interview, claimants must be given a reasonable opportunity to raise any further matters relevant to their protection claim. Where information emerges, which requires further exploration, additional evidence gathering, safeguarding activity or further interviewing the case can proceed through the standard asylum 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. And my noble friend asked about does this process only apply? Apply only to in-country claims? Can I say yes that this change applies to those individuals who've sought asylum in the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom does not accept asylum claims from anyone who is outside the United Kingdom. The Refugee Convention contains no obligation for signatory states to consider the claims made outside their territory. Our policy is consistent with the requirement of the convention.
We will not consider asylum claims made abroad, and there is no provision in the immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the United Kingdom to claim asylum. The single protection interview is not part of the process for those who come to the United Kingdom under a resettlement scheme. Instead, the policy concerns the structure of the interview process and does not change the legal test for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification. The Home Office will consider as part of its review what updates may be needed may need to be made to the guidance.
17:17
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
So I'm sorry to interrupt, and I think I wasn't clear enough in when I was putting the question. I think what's meant by in-country. I'm not suggesting that we're talking about people who've tried to claim asylum from some somewhere else, because I'm aware that that isn't possible. But the question is whether someone, when they arrive on a small boat, say, will they could they be shunted immediately into this process? Or is it people who are already, in a sense, not established in the country, but in the country, who has been here a few days or whatever?
That was the that was the distinction I was trying to make. Not not the one that I think he understood me to make.
That was the that was the distinction I was trying to make. Not not the one that I think he understood me to make.
17:18
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Well, I think I think the answer is it's about the reasons people give for their asylum claim and where they are from in relation to that. We're talking, as I think noble lords have acknowledged, to a small cohort of people, the normal you know, we're not changing the basis for people claiming asylum. What we're doing is making clear that there is a process for a very small cohort to be able to have a much more speedy and efficient way of dealing with their claim. And my noble friend and others raised the question about whether further training is envisaged.
And as the published guidance makes clear, claimants are interviewed by a trained decision maker and claimants will be given the opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, as I say, and provide relevant information and answer questions about circumstances. Decision makers receive specialist training on identifying and assessing vulnerability in the asylum system, as well as assess 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 reviewed but refused. Now, my noble friend, and how claimants will have or asked about how claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence.
And I think a number of noble lords referenced the fact this was deleted from the rules. The published spy guidance states that claimants must be given at least five full working days after their single protection interview to provide any further representations before 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 evidence available when assessing a claim .
Where further information is required, or it becomes clear that a case requires more detailed consideration, it may be rooted out of the single protection interview process and considered through an alternative route. Now, my noble friend and the right Reverend prelate raised the question about access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process and the changes. Can I be clear, do not alter a claimant's entitlement to legal advice or legal aid. The published SPI guidance says that claimants that claimants have 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 and does not remove or reduce procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of protection of claims, including access to legal representation and about and being about to submit information relevant to their claim. Reported concerns about access to legal aid are not unique to this change and should not be conflated with it now. Noble Lords have raised you know, what we said to the the Home Office said to the Secondary Legislation Committee that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries.
And my noble friend suggested the implication is this it could be extended to further countries with and involved a further selection criteria. Can I be. The single protection interview is only suitable for a limited cohort of cases. The process only applies to a narrowly defined cohort of claims from countries assessed as among the safest in the world. The EU E A states Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States. Additionally, information available for individuals must indicate that the claim appears to be clearly unfounded. There are no indicators suggesting that a fuller examination of a claim 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 and that there is no safeguarding concerns or vulnerabilities that would make the process inappropriate and can also, I think the noble Lord, Lord German raised unaccompanied so I can be clear . Unaccompanied asylum seeking children the age disputed children do not fall into the cohort and do not qualify for the single protection interview. And my noble friend also, I think her final question related to the policy, how it 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's 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'm sure that the input from external stakeholders would be part of that consideration. And can I just say to the noble lady, Baroness Bennett, this is not about cost, this is about efficiency and fairness. It represents a measured and targeted reform. They 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, whilst ensuring resources remain more focused. I thank you for your time. I'm sorry I have gone over a little bit. Thank you.
And as the published guidance makes clear, claimants are interviewed by a trained decision maker and claimants will be given the opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, as I say, and provide relevant information and answer questions about circumstances. Decision makers receive specialist training on identifying and assessing vulnerability in the asylum system, as well as assess 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 reviewed but refused. Now, my noble friend, and how claimants will have or asked about how claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence.
And I think a number of noble lords referenced the fact this was deleted from the rules. The published spy guidance states that claimants must be given at least five full working days after their single protection interview to provide any further representations before 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 evidence available when assessing a claim .
Where further information is required, or it becomes clear that a case requires more detailed consideration, it may be rooted out of the single protection interview process and considered through an alternative route. Now, my noble friend and the right Reverend prelate raised the question about access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process and the changes. Can I be clear, do not alter a claimant's entitlement to legal advice or legal aid. The published SPI guidance says that claimants that claimants have 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 and does not remove or reduce procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of protection of claims, including access to legal representation and about and being about to submit information relevant to their claim. Reported concerns about access to legal aid are not unique to this change and should not be conflated with it now. Noble Lords have raised you know, what we said to the the Home Office said to the Secondary Legislation Committee that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries.
And my noble friend suggested the implication is this it could be extended to further countries with and involved a further selection criteria. Can I be. The single protection interview is only suitable for a limited cohort of cases. The process only applies to a narrowly defined cohort of claims from countries assessed as among the safest in the world. The EU E A states Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States. Additionally, information available for individuals must indicate that the claim appears to be clearly unfounded. There are no indicators suggesting that a fuller examination of a claim 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 and that there is no safeguarding concerns or vulnerabilities that would make the process inappropriate and can also, I think the noble Lord, Lord German raised unaccompanied so I can be clear . Unaccompanied asylum seeking children the age disputed children do not fall into the cohort and do not qualify for the single protection interview. And my noble friend also, I think her final question related to the policy, how it 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's 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'm sure that the input from external stakeholders would be part of that consideration. And can I just say to the noble lady, Baroness Bennett, this is not about cost, this is about efficiency and fairness. It represents a measured and targeted reform. They 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, whilst ensuring resources remain more focused. I thank you for your time. I'm sorry I have gone over a little bit. Thank you.
17:25
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, my my thanks. I thank everyone who's contributed to this debate. I thank my noble friend for very patiently dealing with all our questions. I'm not sure where I'll have to read the Hansard afterwards, but I suspect that we may have subsequent questions to raise. I very much welcomed his emphasis on fairness, the general principle of fairness, and that this applies to people who, whatever means they are coming, they may be coming by irregular means. They are not illegal. They have a right to have their asylum claim treated fairly. So I'm glad that that's in effect, what my noble friend was saying.
I won't go into any detail now. I'm conscious that time is moving on, but as I say, I'm very grateful to all who contributed . And I beg to move. I beg to move.
I won't go into any detail now. I'm conscious that time is moving on, but as I say, I'm very grateful to all who contributed . And I beg to move. I beg to move.