Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says changes continue pattern of weak or incomplete explanatory material
The latest report by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee last week has drawn October's Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1333) and four related statutory instruments to the special attention of House.
Image credit: WikipediaHC 1333 made numerous changes to the Immigration Rules, aimed at reducing immigration. These included shortening the post-study visa period for overseas graduates, raising English language requirements for work routes, increasing the Immigration Skills Charge paid by employers, altering the rules for dependants of stateless persons, expanding the Global Talent and High Potential routes, and introducing new visa requirements for nationals of Botswana and Palestine.
The Committee noted that the Home Office had provided more comprehensive supporting material than in some previous rule changes, but said there were still gaps in key areas and a continuing pattern of weak or incomplete explanatory material. It welcomed the inclusion of a full impact assessment (IA) but criticised the lack of clarity in parts of the accompanying documents and the limited consultation with affected sectors.
The report stated:
50. This Statement and accompanying instruments contain a range of high-profile changes to the immigration rules, aimed at reducing immigration (although the overall net effect on numbers is relatively small) and aligning the system more closely with the Government's economic and social goals.
51. In some areas, the information provided with the instruments was significantly better than that accompanying other recent immigration rules changes—as discussed elsewhere in this Report. In particular, an IA allowed a more complete analysis of the effects of the measures. However, in other areas there was missing information. Examples include: a lack of evidence from consultations to support the changes; the absence of a rationale for, guidance on and statistics relating to the statelessness changes, including the lack of reference to the Judicial Review; missing guidance that is critical to the operation of one of the policies; and no clear statement of future intentions regarding reviews of the ISC and premium fees.
52. These are also not the only changes being made to the immigration system. This is the fourth Statement of Changes laid in less than four months, each with significant effects. They also interact. For example, we expressed concerns about the effect of the changes in Statement of Changes (HC 997) on the availability of workers in the social care sector. Such concerns may now be amplified by the restrictions on the Graduate route in this Statement, as the Home Office told us that some graduates in that visa route choose to work in the care sector.
53. While we understand the political imperative to take action on immigration, the changes have complex, wide-ranging and significant implications for many parts of the economy and society. In these circumstances, it is imperative that the explanatory material is comprehensive.
On the change to the graduate route, which will shorten the period that overseas students may stay in the UK after graduation from two years to 18 months, the Committee expressed doubt about the Home Office's view that the impact would be modest. It noted the change could negatively impact the availability of skilled labour, including in areas such as research and innovation, which would reduce economic growth contrary to the Government's overall aims. The Committee further noted that the Office for Students has already warned of financial fragility in parts of the higher education sector, and recommended that the Home Office and the Department for Education monitor the effects closely.
The Committee said: "We are not convinced that the changes will have only a 'modest impact', in particular because the Government's own IA notes that 'the scale of this impact remains highly uncertain'. Given this uncertainty, and the financial fragility of the sector as noted above, the Home Office and the Department for Education should closely monitor the effect of the changes at both the individual institution and sector level. A review in autumn 2026, in the light of applications from abroad for undergraduate courses starting in academic year 2026–27, might be appropriate. We are surprised that, at the very least, the position of institutions that have already received 'material uncertainty' warnings in their audit reports has not been explored; it would be prudent to pay particular attention to these HE providers."
The Immigration Skills Charge, a fee paid by employers who sponsor foreign skilled workers, will rise by 32% under draft regulations. This is the first increase since the charge was introduced in 2017. The Home Office said the change reflects inflation and will support domestic training, but the Committee described official the Home Office's replies to its questions as "unhelpfully vague" and urged the department to review such charges regularly to avoid large, sudden increases in the future.
Changes affecting dependants of people recognised as stateless faced criticism from the Committee, which said it was "disappointed" that the Home Office's original explanatory memorandum (EM) gave no explanation for the amendments or reference to the earlier Judicial Review that prompted them. The Committee described this omission as showing a "concerning lack of awareness of the role of explanatory material" that "continues a trend of unacceptable EMs from the Home Office." The Committee added that it was "unhelpful" that the department failed to publish accompanying guidance on how applicants might demonstrate qualifying relationships, especially given that many stateless people lack formal documentation. While welcoming assurances that caseworkers will take a "flexible and sensitive approach", the Committee stressed that such guidance is critical to how the policy will operate in practice and should have been issued alongside the rule changes.
The statement of changes also expands certain migration routes aimed at attracting high-skilled workers. The list of universities eligible under the High Potential route will double, although an annual cap of 8,000 applications will apply. The Global Talent route will be widened to include more "prestigious prizes" allowing automatic eligibility. The Committee said it was unclear how the 8,000-place cap had been determined and that the Home Office's response to its questions on the issue amounted to a "poor explanation", urging the department to provide a clearer rationale for how such limits are set.
The Committee also expressed concern about the limited consultation undertaken on the changes. The Home Office confirmed that no formal public consultation had been carried out, though it said it engaged directly with universities and sector bodies over the graduate route. The Committee said this information should have been included in the explanatory memorandum and described the lack of consultation on the increase to the Immigration Skills Charge as regrettable.
Such were the Committee's concerns over the trend of substandard explanatory material accompanying changes to the Immigration Rules that it invited Mike Tapp, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, to give oral evidence on 28 October 2025. Noting that the impact assessment for July's statement of changes to the Immigration Rules has still to be published, the Committee emphasised that "Parliament and the public … are still entirely in the dark about the possible effects of HC 997, making a decision on whether to 'buy' the policies … impossible."
Tapp assured the Committee that the Home Office takes the provision of explanatory memorandums and impact assessments "extremely seriously" and acknowledged that it should "always be a priority to ensure we do deliver an impact assessment at the same time as legislation being laid." While the Committee welcomed this commitment, it noted that similar assurances had been given previously without consistent follow-through and said it would continue to scrutinise the Home Office's approach closely in the coming months.
Details of the evidence session were published in the Committee's report, which is excerpted and reproduced below:
ORAL EVIDENCE: POOR EXPLANATORY MATERIAL ACCOMPANYING HOME OFFICE IMMIGRATION RULES CHANGES
Following two sets of immigration rules changes that were accompanied by sub-standard explanatory material, we invited the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Mike Tapp MP, to provide oral evidence on 28 October 2025. The Minister explained that the ongoing delay in publishing an Impact Assessment (IA) for the first set of rules changes (HC 997) has been caused by "behavioural implications and assumptions made that were disagreed with" between departments, but that this would not have changed the "direction of travel" of the policy. Mr Tapp stated that the IA in question would be published "before the end of the year". However, that explanation does not help this Committee in fulfilling its scrutiny duties, or Parliament in deciding whether to exercise its right to reject the legislation. The Home Office may need to consider the priority that it gives to assuring itself, as compared to assisting Parliament. As part of this consideration, the Home Office should reflect on whether it may be helpful to Parliament to disclose ranges of information based on different scenarios when secondary legislation is laid, rather than, or as well as, providing more specific data many months later.
We recognise that the Home Office's explanatory information most often falls short in the highest profile policy area, namely, immigration. We understand the political imperative to take action in this area, but we are clear that appropriate processes should still be followed and full information provided.
We note that a wide range of immigration policy changes have recently been laid, and that these can interact in ways that may not always be clear. For example, Mr Tapp cited the availability of overseas graduates as one mitigant to the risk of insufficient labour supply in the social care sector; a risk which could be exacerbated by HC 997. However, the more recent Statement of Changes (HC 1333), covered elsewhere in this Report, is expected to reduce the number of students arriving on the Graduate visa route. The implications of these interactions therefore need to be understood and explained.
We also raised the apparent inconsistency of Government statements on the future of the Refugee Family Reunion route, which was suspended in September 2025, pending a review. The Home Office told us that "we intend to reopen the route", but the Prime Minister subsequently said that there will be "a fundamental change", with the Government "looking to end automatic family rights". Mr Tapp argued that there was no inconsistency, because the route will reopen, but with changes. We still do not accept this argument. If the route "reopens" without the automatic right being available to family members, it is not in any meaningful way the same route.
Mr Tapp assured us that the Home Office takes "extremely seriously" the provision of Explanatory Memorandums and IAs. However, we have been given similar commitments before (albeit under the previous Government) and they are not always reflected in what we see in practice. We will be scrutinising the Home Office's approach closely over the coming months and we look forward to seeing that commitment realised.
Background
91. On 1 July 2025, the Home Office laid the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 997) that, amongst other measures, made changes to the Skilled Worker visa route that tightened the conditions for granting such visas and removed the social care sector from the list of occupations that can recruit migrant workers. [35] The Government's intention is to reverse a trend in which lower skilled occupations, including the care sector, have seen a particular growth in visa numbers, and to address concerns about exploitation of overseas workers in the care sector.
92. We drew HC 997 to the special attention of the House in our 33rd Report of this Session. [36] A key concern was that no Impact Assessment (IA), or impact information, was provided with the Statement. The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) said only that the changes to the skills threshold were "likely to have an indirect impact on businesses, charities and voluntary organisations"; and that the closure of the skilled worker route for the care sector would be "likely to have an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary organisations who provide care in the UK".
93. We wrote to the then Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra MP, to ask why the IA had not been published. Ms Malhotra's reply said that it had not been possible to publish the IA with the Statement due to "some complexities in finalising the relevant information". [37] We concluded that the situation was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, including:
- The lack of an IA made proper scrutiny, and therefore the Committee's role in the scrutiny process, impossible.
- The measures in the Statement may have been formed before their impact had been fully analysed and understood, leading to a risk that the results may be different from what the department was expecting. The same concern has been raised previously with the Home Office in relation to earlier changes in immigration rules, under the previous Government, and, indeed, was the subject of an evidence session in March 2024. [38]
- The changes might conflict with other pressures, particularly the need to ensure adequate staffing levels in the care sector.
- The Committee did not agree that the effect of the measures on businesses, charities and the voluntary sector would be "indirect", given that they would have a clear effect on organisations' ability to recruit.
- The Home Office also did not carry out a consultation, further limiting its understanding of the practical effects of the changes; once again, a criticism that the Committee has previously advanced in relation to an earlier Statement of Changes. [39]
94. To date, the IA for HC 997 has still not been published.
95. On 4 September 2025, the Home Office laid a further Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1298). [40] HC 1298 introduced a suspension on visa applications through the refugee family reunion (RFR) route, which allowed those who have been granted refugee status in the UK to bring their partner or dependent children to join them without conditions. Applications will be possible via other visa routes, but with more stringent conditions. The Government's intention is to reduce the number of family members arriving and thereby reduce demand on public services such as housing, pending a review of the terms of the route.
96. We drew HC 1298 to the special attention of the House in our 37th Report of this Session. [41] Again, a key issue was that no IA was laid with the Statement. While evidence was provided for the increasing strain on public services by rising RFR visa grants, the Home Office said that no estimates of the effects of the change were possible.
97. We also expressed concerns about the inconsistency of the explanatory material for HC 1298 and a subsequent press release, issued by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Keir Starmer MP, on 2 October. [42] The EM described the suspension as a "temporary pause", while in supplemental information to us the Home Office said "given we intend to reopen the route in the Spring 2026, applicants may decide to defer their applications for a short time". However, the Prime Minister's statement said that "migrants granted asylum in the UK will no longer be automatically given settlement and family reunion rights [ … ] the Home Secretary will introduce a fundamental change to the rights provided to those granted asylum in the UK, looking to end automatic family rights".
98. We concluded that these two statements were not consistent and that there appeared to have been a change in the policy stance since HC 1298 was laid before Parliament. We expressed concern that this represented 'policymaking by press release' and, again, contrasted this with a more comprehensive policymaking process involving appropriate data, analysis, consultation, and an IA.
99. We therefore invited the Home Office to provide oral evidence on the absence of impact information for HC 997 and HC 1298, and on the wider inadequacies in explanatory material provided alongside changes in immigration rules. Accordingly, Mike Tapp MP, Minister for Migration and Citizenship, attended an evidence session on 28 October 2025, along with Dan Hobbs, Director-General for Migration and Borders at the Home Office. A transcript of the session is available on our website. [43]
100. On 14 October 2025, the Home Office laid the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1333). [44] We have drawn HC 1333, along with four related instruments, to the special attention of the House elsewhere in this Report. The package includes a range of high-profile changes to the immigration rules, with an overall aim of reducing immigration and aligning the system more closely with the Government's economic and social goals. The Home Office provided an Impact Assessment (IA) for HC 1333, which we welcome. However, as our Report sets out, the explanatory material in other areas was weak.
Impact Assessment for HC 997
101. In the evidence session, Mr Tapp recognised that IAs are "important to ensure that you, Parliament and, of course, the public fully understand the implications of the policies that we are putting through". In relation to HC 997, Mr Tapp said that there had been "thorough cross-department work with detailed modelling behind it to inform of the potential impacts". However, he stated that in the course of that modelling, there were "behavioural implications and assumptions made that were disagreed with and needed further research". Mr Tapp stressed that these disagreements were not sufficient to alter the "direction of travel" of immigration rules changes, which is to reduce the levels of both legal and illegal migration. Mr Tapp also said that the Home Office would have the final say on any disagreements between departments on immigration issues.
102. The implication of the Minister's argument is that the analysis performed was robust enough to go ahead with the policy, with significant effects on many peoples' lives, but not robust enough to share with Parliament. Questioned on this point, Mr Tapp provided an analogy, saying that: "If you are buying a car and the gearbox is dodgy, you are not going to buy it, but if it needs a new tyre, you will [ … ]. There are elements that needed further discussion and more analysis but they would not change the decision on the purchase". We understand the point, and it somewhat allays our concern about whether the measures in the Statement were formed before their impact had been fully analysed and understood.
103. However, our other key concern is with information provision; to pursue Mr Tapp's analogy, the buyer in this case knows about the car's defects and can make an informed decision based on them. Parliament and the public, on the other hand, are still entirely in the dark about the possible effects of HC 997, making a decision on whether to 'buy' the policies—meaning, in Parliament's case, consider exercising its right to reject them—impossible.
104. We also note that IAs in general frequently include a range of possible impacts, based on different plausible scenarios. Questioned on why the IA was not published in this format, which would have been more useful than not publishing it at all, Mr Tapp said that part of the behavioural disagreements he had referred to involved "prioritising which [scenarios] are most likely, which are least likely, to ensure that we provide you with the most accurate information".
105. We agree that, to provide maximum information, the IA would indicate the relative plausibility of various outcomes. However, at the moment the complete absence of an IA means we know very little about the possible effects of HC 997. The Home Office should consider carefully whether it is helpful to Parliament to disclose ranges of information based on different scenarios when secondary legislation is laid, rather than, or as well as, providing more specific data many months later.
106. Mr Tapp stated that the IA for HC 997 was now "going through the relevant sign-off processes" and would be "produced before the end of the year".
"Policymaking by press release"?
107. As described above, we expressed a concern, in relation to HC 1298 in particular, about possible 'policymaking by press release', in contrast to a more comprehensive policymaking process. When we put this point to the Minister, he again said that he was confident that there was a sufficiently robust cross-government analysis to understand the implications of the policy change. However, Mr Tapp also acknowledged that the Home Office has to deal with a "wide range of top priority issues" that are "always at the forefront of public consciousness". He said that "often we have to move fast on issues that are impacting the public and it is important that we do so".
108. We understand this central point. In practice, the Home Office's secondary legislation that is most frequently lacking full supporting information is in the highest profile policy area: immigration. However, this does not excuse the failure to provide adequate explanatory material. Indeed, it makes it all the more important that such material is made available.
109. Mr Tapp assured us that "we would not put through legislation that we did not believe we had analysed the impact of effectively". This is reassuring to a limited extent. However, as we said in our report on HC 997, "the Home Office may have satisfied itself that its approach is appropriate. However, the point of laying the Statement before Parliament is to allow scrutiny of the changes". The Home Office may need to consider the priority that it gives to assuring itself, as compared to assisting Parliament.
Availability of workers in the care sector
110. We also asked the Minister how he was confident that the social care sector would be able to recruit sufficient workers, including given the current high level of vacancies (he quoted a figure of around 110,000). Mr Tapp said that more information on this point would be available when the IA was published. However, he pointed to the large number of existing migrants with care visas who were "displaced" (in other words, no longer working in that sector), including as a result of sponsoring care businesses having their licences revoked. Mr Tapp stated that "there is hard work going on behind the scenes", including with the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that these displaced workers fill vacancies.
111. Mr Hobbs noted that some students on the Graduate visa route also work in health and social care. This is interesting information, but we repeat here the point we have made on the Statement of Changes (HC 1333) elsewhere in this report, on the importance of understanding the interaction between different policy changes. HC 1333 is expected to reduce the number of students arriving on the Graduate route, so the implications of this for labour supply in the care sector need to be understood and explained.
Refugee Family Reunion
112. We questioned the Minister on the apparent inconsistency explained above in relation to HC 1298, whereby the Home Office told us that "we intend to reopen the route", but the Prime Minister said that there will be "a fundamental change", with the Government "looking to end automatic family rights".
113. Mr Tapp argued that there was no inconsistency, because the route will reopen, but with changes. We still do not accept this argument. A central feature of the RFR route was that it offered an automatic route for immediate family members to join refugees in the UK. If the route "reopens" without that feature, it is not in any meaningful way the same route.
Conclusion
114. This evidence session followed a series of pieces of Home Office secondary legislation, particularly related to changes in immigration rules, that have been laid without adequate explanatory material.
115. We understand the political imperative to take action on immigration, but we are clear that appropriate processes should still be followed and full information provided.
116. We also understand that the Home Office has taken steps to satisfy itself that its "direction of travel" is correct. However, that does not help this Committee in fulfilling its scrutiny duties, or Parliament in deciding whether to exercise its right to reject the legislation.
117. We welcome Mr Tapp's statement that the Home Office takes "extremely seriously" the provision of EMs and IAs, and his acknowledgement that it should "always be a priority to ensure we do deliver an impact assessment at the same time as legislation being laid." However, we have been given similar commitments before (albeit under the previous Government) [45] and they are not always reflected in what we see in practice. The Minister also accepted the point that it could make the Home Office's job easier, including in conducting its business in both Houses, if there were greater transparency and promptness in providing supporting information. However, this would require a change from the approach we have seen to date. Needless to say, we will be scrutinising the Home Office's explanatory material closely over the coming months and we are looking forward to seeing the fruits of that change.
[35] Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 997).
[36] SLSC, 33rd Report (Session 2024–26, HL Paper 164).
[37] We published the exchange of letters in SLSC, 33rd Report (Session 2024–26, HL Paper 164), Appendix 1.
[38] SLSC, 21st Report (Session 2023–24, HL Paper 98).
[39] SLSC, 20th Report (Session 2023–24, HL Paper 94) para 21.
[40] Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1298).
[41] SLSC, 37th Report (Session 2024–26, HL Paper 185).
[42] Prime Minister's Office, 'Press release: UK to reform asylum offer to reduce the pull factor for small boat crossings' (2 October 2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-reform-asylum-offer-to-reduce-the-pull-factor-for-small-boat-crossings.
[43] Oral evidence taken before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 28 October 2025 (Session 2024–26), QQ 1–6: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/255/secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee/publications/oral-evidence/.
[45] Oral evidence taken before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 26 March 2024 (Session 2023–24), Q 1; and on 11 May 2023 (Session 2022–23), Q 2: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/255/secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee/publications/oral-evidence/.