The SEF Opt Out Pilot
The Home Office has launched a new pilot allowing certain unaccompanied children to “opt out” of completing a Statement of Evidence Form (SEF).
Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU) have already set out a clear and compelling analysis of the risks, particularly around informed consent, re-traumatisation and the potential for longer, more intense interviews. Their statement is essential reading for anyone working with young people navigating the asylum system.
In addition to all of the brilliant points raised by GMIAU, BASW has additional concerns that we think social workers should be aware of.
The pilot is built on an unproven premise
The Home Office frames the pilot as a way to “reduce delays” caused by solicitors completing SEFs. Yet there is no evidence that SEF drafting is a meaningful source of delay in children’s asylum claims.
The real issue, and what we’ve all been saying this for years, is the collapse of legal aid capacity. There are simply not enough immigration solicitors to meet demand. That is what delays SEFs and subsequent interviews and decisions.
The pilot therefore treats a problem that does not exist, while ignoring the structural crisis that does.
The children targeted by the pilot are more likely to be refused
The pilot applies to children who are not eligible for the streamlined asylum process. In practice, this means:
- they come from countries with lower grant rates,
- their claims are more complex,
- and they face a higher evidential burden.
These are precisely the young people who need more procedural safeguards, not fewer.
The SEF is one of the few opportunities for a child to set out their narrative in a supported, trauma‑informed environment before entering the high‑pressure interview. Removing it for this cohort increases the likelihood of:
- incomplete disclosure,
- inconsistencies being misinterpreted as credibility issues,
- and ultimately, refusals.
The pilot therefore creates a troubling inequity:
Children from high‑grant‑rate countries keep the full safeguarding process whereas children from low‑grant‑rate countries are offered a shortcut that potentially increases their risk of refusal.
The burden of preparing young people will fall onto social workers
If children opt out of the SEF, the responsibility for preparing them for interview will inevitably fall onto social workers. This places practitioners in an impossible position:
- We are not immigration advisers.
- We are not trained or authorised to give legal advice.
- We risk unintentionally straying into regulated advice.
- And young people may enter interviews ill‑equipped, believing they have been “prepared” when in fact they have not received specialist legal support.
This exposes social workers to professional vulnerability and exposes young people to life‑altering consequences.
It also fundamentally misunderstands the role of social work. Our job is to safeguard, support and advocate, not to replace the legal aid system.
Conclusion
The SEF opt‑out pilot does not address the real cause of delay: the shortage of legal aid solicitors. Instead, it removes a protective step for the children who need it most, increases the risk of refusal and shifts responsibility onto social workers who cannot (and should not) be expected to fill the gap left by a failing legal aid system.
GMIAU are right to raise their concerns, and highlight that this pilot is not a pathway to efficiency, but rather only offers a pathway to poorer decisions and increased risk of harm.
Children deserve a system that is properly resourced, trauma‑informed and built around their rights, not around administrative convenience.
