One of the major disputes in Parliament this week was about the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021, a set of regulations which the opposition claim would remove protections found in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 from vulnerable immigrants.

The consultation on the regulations was heavily criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee who described it as “poor practice”. It lasted only two weeks in August 2020; consulted only a small range of stakeholders, which didn’t include specialist organisations or others who might have had relevant experience; took place late in the policy-making process; and those who were involved in the consultation process were placed under a requirement not to share proposals beyond the group. On this basis, we would certainly concur with the Committee that this was an incredibly poor consultation that fell not only below best (or even good) practice, but possibly even to the point of being unlawful.

That is not the only consultation the Home Office has issued recently on immigration, and not the only one that has been criticised. We have already written extensively in a previous Week in Parliament about our concerns about the process, and at the time I promised you a return when I had heard back from the organisers on whether it was (as it appeared to be) online only. I have now had that response, and they have confirmed that it is. This gives me the opportunity to somewhat narcissistically quote myself here from that article:

Consultations have been successfully challenged in the past on the basis that they over-relied on one type of engagement- and particularly here where some respondents may have limited capacity to access the internet, if there really is no offline method of response, then that is deeply unsatisfactory. If there is, but it’s unadvertised and there is no way of finding out about it without contacting the organisers, that is equally deficient.

Online only consultations are not only a matter of process, there are potential equalities issues too. Although great strides have been made in recent years in increasing internet access, it is still true that the digital divide is not evenly spread across society. Often, the people who most need to be consulted on these things are least likely to have easy access to the internet and to any online consultations. This is a particular problem here, as making the consultation online only is likely to cut out some of the people most able to speak with direct experience of the immigration process.

We’re not the only people with concerns. Two hundred civil society organisations working in the subject area have signed an open letter describing the consultation as a “sham” and claiming it is designed to “mislead parliament”. Although we would not respond anything other than a relatively standard response from the Home Office, it does raise interesting questions as to whether the Home Office has something of a blind spot for immigration consultations.

Whatever the political views of the public and Government on the subject of immigration itself, the proper process is very important in policymaking. Particularly when the changes are on the scale of these, it is vital to get as many views as possible, and all efforts should be made to ensure fairness and proper best practice consultation. Although it might be easy or convenient to ignore the views of immigrants given public attitudes, this is precisely why it is important to reach out to ensure that policy is not made in an unfair or abusive manner.

In recent times, we’ve seen a few consultations from the Home Office that have piqued our interest, and not in a positive way. This year alone, we have seen the emergence of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which introduces significant changes to the policing of protests which were not consulted upon at all (we’re still awaiting a full response to our FOI on this- currently our request is being vetted for exceptions). Their consultation on the immigration regulations looks distinctly off, and the wider immigration reforms consultation seems to be deeply, deeply flawed.

Together, all this leads us to wonder- is there a problem with the consultation culture at the Home Office? Whilst one or two slip-ups might be expected of any consultor, there seems to be an emerging pattern of poor consultation from the Home Office, and many of the problems are far from being minor flaws. Consultation plays a vital role in policy making for many reasons we have repeated ad infinitum (and will continue to do so). Doing it badly is a critical failing, and leads to unfairness, poor policy and mistakes. In a well-resourced organisation like the Home Office, dealing with significant changes that affect millions of lives, there is a very strong imperative to do consultation thoroughly and well. We can only hope they soon realise this and take another look at their processes.

This article will also serve as your Week in Parliament this week- as a notice, Westminster was prorogued yesterday with all the pomp and circumstance possible during covid times. They will return on 11^th May, and with the elections on 6^th May meaning that Wales and Scotland will be little active, there will not be a Week in Parliament next week (though I will keep an eye on Stormont in case anything exciting happens there).