MiCLU have noted with concern recent changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 259) which expand the circumstances in which asylum claims may be decided without a substantive asylum interview.
Alongside removing the guaranteed opportunity to submit further evidence when no substantive interview takes place, this sets the scene for the Home Office’s stated plans for a new, merged screening process.
Presented by the Home Office as a procedural reform and snuck in during the distraction of a major new bill announcement, the changes represent a major shift in how asylum claims may be decided.
Allowing claims to be refused without a substantive asylum interview will inevitably risk wrongful refusals and exposing people to persecution, torture or other serious harm if returned.
This will particularly impact survivors of torture, trafficking and trauma: evidence consistently shows that vulnerable people often cannot disclose painful experiences during their first interactions with the asylum system. Producing medical reports, expert evidence & effective legal representation will only be possible after trust has been built and full advice obtained.
Whereas reducing two interviews to one, reducing the opportunities to provide evidence and accelerating decisions will make it harder to even identify those most in need of protection.
These changes are being introduced through the backdoor against a backdrop of a severe asylum legal aid crisis. Many people do not have a lawyer at the screening stage and only secure representation later on.
While the Home Office says the merged screening process will initially be used for claims from very low-grant rates and for claims considered clearly unfounded, the Rules themselves do not impose those limits, and the scheme could expand over time.
And as the merged screening process will not provide sufficient opportunity for individuals to demonstrate their claims are not clearly unfounded, grant rates will likely further drop, in a self-reinforcing vicious cycle.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has criticised the Home Office for failing to explain why it had not consulted on the operational changes, in light of concerns flagged by Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture.
Given the absence of any consultation or impact assessment we are calling for implementation to be paused until questions are answered and the consequences have been properly scrutinised.
Click here for the statement of changes.
Click here for the explanatory memorandum.
