Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
Friday 6th September 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberAsylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, I declare my noble friend’s interest that ad hoc research and advisory support is provided by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
Friday 13th December 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberAsylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to make as smooth as possible the move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support for newly recognised refugees, an aim on which I am sure we can all agree.
To this end, the Bill would do simply two things. First, it would increase, from 28 to 56 days, this move-on period to give newly recognised refugees the time they need to make this transition. Having 56 days would synchronise with the period local authorities are given to work with households at risk of homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It would also provide sufficient time for a universal credit claim to be processed, which 28 days does not.
Secondly, the Bill would require the Home Office to inform an asylum seeker when their asylum support will end at the same time as they are told the outcome of their asylum claim, and it would ensure that the eviction notice is at least as long as the overall move-on period. In other words, it would mean that all the documentation had to arrive at the same time, which it rarely does at present, and it would provide a more reasonable eviction notice period in line with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Renters’ Rights Bill. It is thus very welcome that, just over a week ago, the Home Office told local authorities that, from this week, the first clause of the Bill was in effect being implemented, but—there is always a “but”—only as an interim measure during the period of increased decision-making and the transition to e-visas, expected to last until June next year.
In view of this, and in introducing my Bill, I will do two things. First, I will explain why, as positive as this move is, the problem it addresses is long-term and systemic, and not simply a product of current policy developments, even if they have aggravated it. Secondly, I will raise some practical concerns and questions about the interim measure, many of which emerged at a meeting of the APPG on Refugees last week.
Before going any further, I thank Jon Featonby and Hayden Banks of the Refugee Council and Heather Staff of RAMP for all their help. Here I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. I also thank the myriad organisations and individuals who have been in touch, generally unsolicited, to voice their support and to offer their help. Many took part in a very helpful Zoom call last month. I have been bowled over by the strength and extent of the support I have received from around the country and by the number of organisations—refugee, homelessness, such as Crisis, and local authority—that have been calling for this change.
I first attempted to do something about this during the passage of the then Immigration Bill 2016. To be fair, since then there have been a number of attempts to make the whole process work better, and I am grateful to various members of the previous Government for their role in that. However, a promise made during the passage of that Bill to bring forward a proposal to amend the regulations, if an evaluation pilot through which assistance was provided with the transition did not solve the problems, came to nothing. Even though it has become patently clear that such assistance might be helpful, including now asylum move-on liaison officers, it does not address the issue that 28 days simply is not enough time.
I would have difficulty navigating the complexities of trying to secure a stable home, apply for UC, open a bank account and look for work all in 28 days. How on earth do we expect someone who is relatively new to the country, may have language difficulties and may have undergone trauma, to manage it? It is not long enough, even if all the processes were done properly. As was clear from our Zoom call, all too often they are not done properly, so all kinds of practical problems arise. I will detail the hurdles that a refugee can face claiming UC—identified by the UNHCR and British Red Cross—but, even if all goes smoothly, UC is not paid for five weeks. An advance payment spells hardship down the line, when it is deducted from the weekly benefit, especially given that newly recognised refugees are very unlikely to have savings to fall back on.
I note here the problem of digital exclusion—identified by the British Red Cross in particular and strongly reaffirmed at last week’s APPG meeting—as I fear that this might loom even larger with the advent of e-visas in place of biometric residence permits. Indeed, there is a general concern among refugee organisations, such as the Refugee Council, that e-visas could aggravate the difficulties of the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister throw some light on how they will work and what their impact will be on the move-on period? In particular, can he explain how the digitally excluded will access their UKVI account, and can he assure me that the move-on period will not commence until a UKVI account and e-visa have been accessed? My understanding is that this will not be the case, which could mean a move-on period of less than 56 days in practice. If so, would refugees at least be able to apply for UC and access housing services without the e-visa? This all underlines the importance of the Bill’s requirement that all documentation is sent together.
The impact of the inadequate move-on period on newly recognised refugees is both material and psychological. Barnardo’s has detailed the damaging effects it can have on children, and, as the BRC points out, this can include age-disputed children awaiting a local authority age assessment or challenging an assessment, while having to navigate the complexities of adult support. Two words jump out when considering the evidence of the material impact: homelessness and destitution. These are not new problems, even if they have got worse over the past year. Not only is homelessness all too frequent but destitution means that, once asylum support is withdrawn, refugees are left with no money to buy the most basic necessities, such as food, shoes or toiletries, and, as the BRC warns, they are at heightened risk of exploitation.
It does not take much imagination to grasp the psychological impact of the stress, anxiety and mental distress caused by all this, especially when taking into account that many of those affected have already suffered trauma and torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status, but instead they are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time. It is more like a state of purgatory. It was evidence of the despair that this caused that first alerted me to the issue a decade ago. It was highlighted recently by an email from one of the many volunteers supporting the Bill. She wrote from Derbyshire:
“Just this last week I have had to try and comfort a man who was in despair having received his good news on his leave to remain, news that had immediately left him overwhelmed by the task in front of him. To see a man in tears at what should be such good news, after knowing that he had already survived so much suffering, left me feeling sick and helpless and also ashamed at how many obstacles this country presents to those whom we offer shelter and safety”.
As well as the immediate impact on refugees, the inadequate move-on period undermines this Government’s own aspiration to ensure their integration, a point made forcefully by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees and by London Councils, as well as by individual local authorities such as Islington Council, which is unable to undertake resettlement work as a consequence. Here it is worth noting the need for more funding for local authorities if they are to provide newly recognised refugees with adequate support.
Many of the points I have made are illustrated by a case study I received from Young Roots, which it says is typical of the homeless young refugees it is supporting. Sayed is a 21 year-old who fled the war in Sudan and suffered torture en route to the UK. After two years, he was granted refugee status in August. His relief at finally realising his dreams of rebuilding his life were short-lived. Despite him immediately taking all the practical steps necessary with the help of the Young Roots youth club, his appointment with the local authority housing team to assess his needs was not until four days before he was due to be evicted. Although Sayed tried to use the time to find something himself, he was hindered by the fact that he had no income and would not receive his first UC payment for five weeks. The local authority was unable to help him within the 28-day timeframe and he ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of his asylum hotel. He was approached by drug dealers who offered him money and accommodation if he would work for them. Eventually, after 24 days of rough sleeping, he was offered a room by the local authority, in an area where he knew no one. The experience of those at Young Roots tells them that the practical and psychological effects of all this are likely to be long-lasting on someone so young and vulnerable.
At this point, I had planned to try to pre-empt the arguments that I thought my noble friend might make in defence of 28 days. Happily, I no longer need to do so. However, I will raise a number of concerns and questions about the interim measure, which I have shared in advance with him.
Although it is good that the change will take effect as the weather gets colder, it does seem rather rushed. What steps have been taken to ensure that individual local authorities and front-line staff are aware of the change and of their responsibility to provide homelessness assistance as soon as the decision letter has been received? How will the policy be communicated to voluntary sector organisations, especially those that the Home Office is not in direct contact with? Will the details be published on GOV.UK, so that they can be easily referred to?
I have to say that the process seems unnecessarily complicated—I needed a wet towel round my head to make sense of it. I suspect that newly recognised refugees could have real difficulties in knowing what it all means for them. Is there a reason why the documentation process has not been simplified so that it can all be received at the same time, as proposed in the Bill?
I have already warned that receiving e-visas later than the decision letter could, in practice, reduce the 56 days. Could my noble friend clarify whether the 56 days starts from the date of decision or does it, as now, allow for two days for the letter to be received? If the decision letter is sent to the wrong address—which happens all too frequently—will the move-on period be extended to allow for lost time?
I welcome that the evaluation will be carried out independently, but can my noble friend assure me that the Home Office will take account of the potentially negative impact of the switch to e-visas when determining the interim measure’s success? Could he explain the criteria that the interim scheme will be evaluated against—beyond the impact on homelessness—and the data on which it will be based? One point made strongly at the APPG meeting was that the evaluation should involve newly recognised refugees themselves, so that it captures the lived experience of those most affected. Will this be the case? Finally, will the findings, including the interim findings, be published, and will Parliament be able to debate them?
I still believe that there is a need for this Bill, to address what is a long-term problem, although we all realise that it is not a silver bullet. Tellingly, a survey of Local Government Association members found that extending the move-on period to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as
“the single most effective change”
to the move-on process—a position supported by London Councils also.
Moreover, this is a policy change that does not require extra spending. According to research conducted by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE, it could save money.
As my noble friend Lord Coaker said from the Front Bench in 2022, echoing the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2017, chaired by the current Home Secretary:
“The 28-day move-on period is simply not long enough to put basic arrangements in place … we should be able to do better”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1068.]
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who regrets that he is unable to speak today because of a funeral, the case “seems unanswerable”.
At our last—I trust friendly—encounter, my noble friend was warned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I and others pressing these issues have gained the reputation of being terriers, not all of whom could be here today. He generously extolled the virtues of parliamentary terriers and, in effect, gave me carte blanche to continue chewing his legs, as he put it. After nearly a decade chewing at ministerial legs on this issue, only for it to get worse despite administrative tweaks, I fervently hope that the Government will respond positively to the widespread, strong support for the Bill and that we can put an end to the misery caused by the 28-day move-on period, not just on an interim basis but permanently and enshrined in law. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the leader of the pack for introducing the Bill with her usual combination of passion and rigour. I support it. I know that my views on migration and asylum-seeking are not in complete alignment with that of every other Member of the House, but the Bill is about people who have been accepted as refugees, and I hope we all believe in efficiency and humanity. I hope none of us believes in punishing people for being refugees.
I welcome the 56-day pilot as part of progress towards a permanent change, not just in the time period, I hope, but in the overall process. I too hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to tell the House, and importantly the sector and the people affected, the details: who and where; how information will be captured; how the pilot will be evaluated; how the Home Office, and all relevant departments, will work with local authorities, NGOs, landlords, banks, employers and everyone with direct experience, which includes refugees themselves; and how evaluation of the ALMO project will be incorporated, so that it is a single exercise, into the development of wraparound support for people granted status.
Local authority funding is of course an issue. The integration tariff for people on the Homes for Ukraine and Afghan schemes does not apply to refugees who have arrived via an asylum route.
I saw the Home Office reported as referring to a “time-limited” exercise
“as we clear the asylum backlog and transition to eVisas”,
and being
“committed to ending the use of hotels as we ramp up returns of failed asylum seekers”.
I found part of that objective and the messaging—the words used—less than wholly encouraging.
It strikes me as an irony that so many of those who seek asylum are professionally qualified, skilled, energetic and, I am sure, well organised. What must they think—this is a rhetorical question—about information about moving on coming in a series of separate letters, with confusion around effective dates and processes? There are so many aspects, as the noble Baroness said: homelessness, priority need and rough sleeping; children’s education being disrupted by moving; the need for contractors to provide support, not only physical accommodation; access to universal credit; e-visas. I could go on, but this is a short debate. The pilot is a chance to iron out problems and bureaucratic confusions and inconsistencies. I have heard it described as “fudge-adjacent”; I hope it is much more than that.
Yesterday, I met someone from an organisation in an allied field who said that the most encouraging words they could hear from a Minister are, “I’d like you to talk to my officials”. I would like the Minister and his colleagues in government to express a willingness to listen to and work with not my officials—I have not got any—but those who can contribute their direct experience to make the pilot a success.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Come on, my Lords, it is the season of good will, and here we have Wenceslas, down from the snowy wastes of Croydon—I think he deserves a welcome. He has already given us the key point in the Bill: that it is on a temporary basis. “Rien ne dure comme le provisoire”, as the French say—nothing lasts longer than the temporary. I sincerely hope so, because 28 days was absurd, particularly when it took at least seven days for the biometric passport document to turn up and five weeks for access to universal credit to be possible. Of course 56 days rather than 28 days is required, and I strongly support the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
But we should acknowledge that the reason why there has been such a surge in homelessness, recourse to food banks and rough sleeping—a reason for it—is that the Government have made a determined attempt to cut down the asylum backlog queue, and that to me deserves a very warm welcome from this House. I am not sure we have said it often enough already. So that is two cheers from me: one for 56 days and one for the attack on the queue—only two cheers, though.
My third cheer will come when the Minister can tell us that he has looked at and had changed the absurd rule that those waiting for an asylum decision may not take a job and may not work. It is degrading to the individual; it is economically absurd for the country. It is costly in financial terms; it is costly in economic terms. We really need people who are willing to work. It also leaves the individual exposed to the temptations of the black market and the black economy. It seems to me that what we really need—I very much hope the Minister will look at this sympathetically—is a relaxation of that rule.
Of course, when people like me made that point, under the last Government we heard that the dreaded “pull factor” would come in. Anybody who has been watching the slaughterhouses of Syria open knows that the asylum process has been absolutely correct when it awards asylum status to 99.9% of those coming from Syria and applying. It was not a pull factor: they did not want to work here; they were running away from slaughter in their homeland. The same is true of Sudanese, Eritreans and Iranians, as it is of Syrians. I do hope this Government will drop the “pull factor” as an argument against allowing those here to earn their way. It was always a myth.
In any case, the asylum process itself will test whether there is a well-justified fear of persecution that drove the person to come here. You cannot say these people are economic migrants; that will be tested in the simultaneous asylum process, and if some are found to be economic migrants, they will not be allowed to stay. It seems to me that there is no argument, intellectually or economically, for maintaining the rule that prevents them working, so socially disruptive as it is. I hope the Minister will be able to look at that, and then I will give him my third cheer.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am glad to add my voice on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing it forward.
As the Bishop of London, I see many churches which have stepped in to provide support to newly recognised refugees when the process of support just does not work as it should. Last year, I led a letter signed by 44 other faith and belief leaders in London to raise awareness of the high rates of homelessness for the newly recognised refugees. Many other faith groups and churches found themselves supporting newly recognised refugees who were street homeless. As part of the letter, we called for the Government to extend the support to 56 days. Following the letter, I had a very productive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, when he was in his ministerial post, along with officials, and I pay tribute to him for his willingness to listen and, in fact, his willingness to respond.
We identified a few issues that have already been highlighted that people were facing. First, as we have already heard, 20 days is simply not enough, even if they do everything right. Secondly, the letters are complicated and there are a number of them: the letter for biometric residence permit and notice to quit as well as the decision letter. When we looked, with permission, at these letters, they were often very long, reaching to seven or eight pages and were often unclear. Critically, they did not clearly state the date at which support would end, apart from the notice to quit period, which is only seven days in advance. Of course, if that letter comes late or is delayed in the post, some people were facing only one or two days’ notice. Thirdly, we found that several people had errors with their biometric residence permit which meant that they could not access the support they needed and were still evicted at the end of their support period. These mistakes are incredibly difficult to correct, particularly if it is a spelling mistake.
For these reasons, I support this Bill. After having met the previous Minister and Home Office officials, we continued to work with them. One of the successes is that the letters have become clearer, particularly the letter making it clear when accommodation would end. That date is now much clearer in that letter. I also welcome the workaround simplification of the letters that refugees receive. As regards the pilot that has been announced by the Government, I ask the Minister how it will be evaluated and whether the Government continue to work with newly recognised refugees, so that the communication improvement continues. Finally, I wonder what action the Government are taking to ensure that the administrative systems are appropriately resourced so that they are efficient.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is with a readiness to admit that the substantive points that I might have wanted to make have been made that I begin to share my thoughts today. I began the week in the company of the noble Lord, Lord German, in Paris at the migration committee of the Council of Europe. We rather missed the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who has just stepped down from that committee, but we have noticed over the years that there tends not to be much representation from the Conservative side of this House present at the migration committee—though there is membership, not much attendance has tended to be part of the discussion of migration either in Paris or in Strasbourg. It is sad that the noble Lord, with whom we have enjoyed jousts in the past, is the sole voice for the Conservative Party in this debate.
I echo the readiness of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to give a third cheer, as and when; all I can say is that, as and when it came to pass, it would get a rather rousing cheer from me. We have here people unable to be the human beings they were made to be by doing something productive and having a role. That seems to me to be a denial of something rather beyond the right to work, and so on: the right to be human, in a very different sense. The other thing is that I wonder whether the Minister might persuade us that the decision-making that led to the extension of the period from 28 to 56 days is not the last word on the matter. Since it is common sense for it to happen at all, it does not seem reasonable to me that the common sense should run out in June next year, and we should go on having a lengthier period during which the formalities could be completed.
With that—and, I hope, Hansard noting that the reverend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port did not use his three minutes—that is my contribution to today’s debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord unexpectedly early.
First, I offer the strongest possible Green support for this Bill, which has not been pre-empted by the praiseworthy government action because, as pretty well every speaker has highlighted, at the moment we have a trial, a very commendable trial, extending the period of accommodation to 56 days. As pretty well everyone has asked, why not make this obvious step permanent, which this Bill does, as well as provide the simplification and clarity in paperwork that is so urgently needed?
I join the general commendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She is living proof that my hashtag, “#CampaigningWorks”, is indeed true, and a decade of campaigning has got us to this point. She deserves the highest possible commendation for that. I also thank her for her powerful and incisive speech.
The current circumstances have led me, like others, to have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I understand that the 56 days will come in only for newly recognised refugees, from the date of that announcement. Clearly, there will be a gap for people in the intervening period. Surely we can do something to make sure that people in that situation are not homeless just because they are in that intervening period.
I have a particularly critical question on the situation for Syrians making asylum claims. We are aware that there has been a pause in processing; this potentially affects some 6,500 people, including a significant number of children. Two days ago, Sky News reported on the 36 year-old Hussam Kassas, an activist against the Assad regime who has a wife and two children and now acutely fears homelessness. Can the Minister explain what will happen to Syrians affected by the pause in terms of housing? That really needs to be put on record.
Many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Trussell Trust on this debate. It is important to note that an organisation that provides food banks feels the need to give us a briefing on a Bill about asylum and the situation of asylum seekers leaving. It is worth stressing, because there is not enough public awareness of this fact, that, while people are seeking asylum, the asylum support rates are £49.18 a week for those in Home Office-funded accommodation and £8.86 for those in accommodation where food is provided. It is worth thinking about what it would be like if you had been living, as many people have for many months—and, in many cases, many years—on that tiny sum of money, and how difficult it would be for you suddenly to be able to set yourself up for life in a home.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to contribute to this Second Reading on such a vital Bill from my noble friend Lady Lister.
I am grateful to the organisations that have sent in briefings, both to extend my own knowledge and to inform my contribution today. I begin with the stark assertion from Barnardo’s that “There is currently a homelessness epidemic amongst newly recognised refugee families in the UK who experience homelessness and destitution as a direct result of the 28 day move on policy for those obliged to move out of asylum hotels, to find new accommodation less than a month after being granted refugee status”. The granting of refugee status should be very good news, but the timeframe puts a great deal of stress on families and individuals. As the Refugee Council says, a successful asylum claim should be “a moment of celebration” but, due to the short move-on time, far too many people end up facing homelessness.
Of course, this is not just damaging for the refugees themselves; it also puts local authority and voluntary sector services under pressure. This is not just about homelessness: in the moving-on period, a refugee has to find work or successfully apply for welfare support. It is not surprising, then, that local authorities support this extension to the moving-on period. A key reason why the 28 days are simply too short is that, having been unable to work pending a decision on their asylum application—let us all hope that we can hear the third cheer from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, very soon—newly recognised refugees may need to claim universal credit, which has an in-built delay of 35 days between application and first payment. As my noble friend said, it is possible to be awarded an advance payment, but only if the refugee is aware of the possibility of applying; then, of course, money is deducted from further future payments. This could be avoided if the timescales on processes were aligned.
The Government have announced a temporary increase in the move-on period from 28 to 56 days, as we have heard, but questions—some of them put by noble Lords in earlier speeches—remain. What is required is the full statutory extension to 56 days on a permanent basis, as outlined in my noble friend’s Bill. I wish the Bill well and hope that the Government will be able to support it.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, like many others, it is a pleasure for me to speak in support of this Bill. I too pay tribute to the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as well as to other campaigners who have continued to call for a longer move-on period for those newly granted refugee status.
I sincerely welcome the Government’s decision to introduce this pilot, extending the move on-period to 56 days. It is among the recommendations of the recent Commission on the Integration of Refugees, of which I was pleased to be a commissioner; I should also state my interest as a principal of RAMP. It seems only a short while ago that we were responding to the reduction of the period to seven days, soon after which refugee homelessness figures reached an unprecedented peak, accounting for 51% of rough sleepers—a near 1,000% increase between the July of that year and last autumn.
As we have heard, even 28 days simply is not enough to find new accommodation, seek employment and navigate the welfare system, especially if someone is supporting a family. Without a longer period, we are setting people up to fail, which is no strategy at all for integration. Stability is key for families, particularly for children and young people. These 56 days will help ensure minimal disruption as council services will have more time to find suitable accommodation closer to support networks and, especially, to allow children the possibility to stay on at existing schools.
The Bill before us makes sensible provision regarding documentation. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will look at simplifying the scheme and improving the processes further. For example, why can an e-visa not be issued at the same time as the documentation relevant to the asylum decision? Can we have an assurance that local authorities can start to support refugees with housing support right from day one? It is clear that there is more we can do to support refugee integration. I hope that this positive move from the Government is the start of a developing strategy; I would be delighted to meet the Minister and offer whatever support I can going forward.
Finally, the Home Office often refers to the move-on period as a “grace period”. I hope that the Minister will allow me to speak from a faith perspective for a moment, as noble Lords might expect from these Benches. Grace in the theological sense—and, I argue, the true sense—is never for a limited pilot period, nor for when it is easy or convenient. I therefore encourage the Government to go further and make this extension to 56 days a permanent fixture—a true period of grace in the asylum system.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as two founder members of the Lister terriers pack, I pay tribute to the leader of our pack; I am privileged to stand up and support her Bill. I thank the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, as the former chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, because one of the few strengths of the House of Commons is the Select Committee. It looked at this matter in great detail and came out with a recommendation to do precisely what the Home Office has just done, so I pay tribute to her and to the committee’s effectiveness.
I wish to speak specifically about the issue of age-disputed children; I also have some questions on it. Between April and June this year, 2,088 age disputes were raised. There are several specific challenges that age-disputed young people face in navigating this process. Clearly, there are vulnerability and safety issues. Although the Home Office works with organisations that provide some support, it is not always done terribly effectively. Those organisations are often not specialists in supporting age-disputed young people and often direct them back to the British Red Cross. Migrant Help, which is contracted to provide move-on advice, told us that it does
“not provide this service to age-disputed young people”.
However, it added that it would be willing to provide this service outreach in some cases; perhaps the department could get in touch with Migrant Help and see whether there would be some sense in trying to make that systematic and part of the process.
The move-on process is often the starting point for engaging with family reunion, which is a highly emotional and sometimes mildly traumatic process. For age-disputed young people who are sponsoring family members—some of them are—that makes it particularly complex. Can the Minister look at those specific issues? I do not expect an answer from the Dispatch Box; perhaps he could write to us so that we can follow up on that. I would be most grateful.
So I entirely agree with the purpose of the Bill. I also entirely echo the third cheer of my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, not least because many of us have a vivid memory of this being discussed at great length in this House, with a significant amount of support in particular from the then Government’s ranks, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I seem to recall her saying that allowing migrants to help is entirely in line with what she regards as a core Conservative value.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. At this stage there is little more to say other than to support the brilliant, excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I find that I agree with everything that has been said so far in this discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it.
I would like to make a couple of additional points. First, there is a London dimension to this. I understand that it affects the whole country, but it is notable that the input from local authorities has come from London Councils. Its figures, and just living in London, make it clear that this is a problem that does need to be addressed.
Secondly, I have not heard any discussion, least of all from my Government—so I hope that my noble friend the Minister can help us—on whether there has been any research on what period is needed? It is obvious that 28 days was totally arbitrary. It was not chosen on the basis of deep research about what time is necessary to do all the tasks that are required. All the written evidence we had, as well as the evidence from speakers today, shows that 28 days is not enough. I do not think there is any debate about that. So what time is required? The same thing could be said about the 56 days, to be honest. What time is required? Will the Government undertake research on which a rational decision can be taken to assess how long it is reasonable to expect people in the circumstances that refugees find themselves to introduce themselves to our society and undertake all the tasks that other speakers have identified?
I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the temporary extension of the period. One finds it difficult that, at the end of the period, the Government would be so brutal as to go back to 28 days. This is not really a fudge but a partial acceptance of the point. One does not have to be that paranoid to see the fingerprints of the Treasury on this decision. All those who know the subject and all those who have spoken today are absolutely clear that 28 days is not enough.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I first declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP Project.
There have been two metaphors used in this debate so very far, very helpfully. One was about terriers and the other was about Good King Wenceslas. I must say that the terrier ordeal that the people in the pack have put up with for this length of time has now come to some fruition, so I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the rest of the pack for all their work over the last decade in bringing this forward.
On Good King Wenceslas—which I have sung many times in this last week—one thing he had to do, apart from coming from the near mountains of Flintshire rather than Croydon, was send his page out to get fuel to keep warm. That in itself is a metaphor for what we are discussing today about people being able to find appropriate homes. So, if we are going to wish upon the Minister the Good King Wenceslas theme, perhaps he can pay attention to all that has been said in this Chamber so far.
I must add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about our meeting last Monday. What he did not say was that he moved a resolution of the Migration Committee of the Council of Europe to support the permanent extension from 28 days to 56 days, and it received unanimous support. So now the whole weight of all the countries in the Council of Europe is now sitting on Good King Wenceslas’s shoulders to make sure that people can, metaphorically, keep warm.
Obviously, we are grateful that the Minister has introduced this temporary measure and has listened to all the voices. However, lying behind that, essentially, as many in this Chamber have discussed today, is getting all the ducks in a row—another metaphor—for all the things that need to take place during that 56-day period. I pray in aid what the Government sent out to local authorities on 2 December about this new 56-day process. There are three things I would like to ask the Minister about. First, in the box marked “Decision”, there are two boxes. One says that the outcome letter is sent out, basically, to end in 56 days. The second one says, “Notification received of e-visa account”. I presume that this means that on that very day, the e-visa account information is sent to the person who has had a successful status change. Because it is not actually in the same box, does that mean it could be sent out at some stage later?
That e-visa, or whatever the document is, is the key to triggering the issues of financial support, housing, UC and so on. In the context of the UC support, having dispensed with the previous Government’s employment scheme for refugees, can the Minister explain what is replacing it, particularly in respect of UC? UC is not just the money. There is also the employment support that it can provide. Will there be a separate form of support for people during that period?
All in all, we ought to be in a semi-celebratory Christmas mood. We look forward to the Government having their national integration strategy laid out before us in time, which will of course go well beyond June: as the right reverend Prelate said, the grace period will extend forever.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the move-on period was fixed at 28 days under the previous Labour Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted, she has been raising questions about this valiantly since at least 2016. I can certainly confirm that my ankles too bear the scars of the Lister terrier pack.
The last Government were aware of the issues raised in this Bill and the issues that arise in the question of the move-on period from asylum accommodation. As long ago as 2022, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, then the Home Office Minister, observed from the Dispatch Box that the then Government’s focus was on implementing practical changes with the aim of securing better outcomes. In October 2023, I answered a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in relation to the move-on period. I noted that the Home Office was reliant on people who are no longer eligible for asylum support leaving the asylum accommodation estate as quickly as possible and that this number was increasing due to the significant efforts that were under way to clear the asylum backlog—which of course has been reducing both under the previous Government and this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, noted.
I also said in that Answer that individuals should make plans to move on from asylum support as quickly as possible and that the Home Office offers support through Migrant Help or its partner organisation in doing this. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing, and signposting that newly recognised refugees are entitled to housing assistance from the local authority and will be treated as a priority need if they have children or are considered vulnerable.
I further noted that individuals do not need to wait for their BRP to make a claim for benefits and that they are encouraged to do so as early as possible. That was followed, in December last year, by my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s answer to an Oral Question on this topic. He said that the prescribed 28-day period
“is long-standing in our legislation”,—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2036.]
and that increasing it would “exacerbate” the “huge strain” on the asylum accommodation estate.
This problem has not gone away. It has since worsened, not least—I hesitate to be political here—because of the increased small boat crossings, of 20,000, since the general election. The Government’s decision to increase to a 56-day period as a pilot measure is viewed with some concern, as is this Private Member’s Bill. I am particularly concerned that this move is being funded by a transfer of funds from the refugee employability programme which, as the Sunday Times of last Sunday informs us, was scrapped by a decision of the Prime Minister. The refugee employability programme, which I have already raised in this House, was designed to help integrate refugees into our society and to provide English language training. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.
We must not forget that one consequence of this change is that there are fewer resources to provide accommodation for those who need it and are already living in our country. It is an exercise in the allocation of scarce resources. Contrary to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge to end the use of hotels, taxpayers are now spending about £8 million a day on hotel costs. This policy and this Bill will surely drive up that figure.
In all the speeches I have heard today, there has been a striking absence of the discussion of the cost of these measures to the Home Office budget. Can the Minister please set out the cost to the Home Office of, first, the extension of this trial period and, secondly, making the proposed change permanent? Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the legal basis for the extension to 56 days during the trial period, given that the figure remains unamended in the 2000 regulations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The noble Lord caught me unawares there. I thought I had a little longer, but there we go: it is all part of the fun.
I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate on the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill. We have had some discussion today, and I say straightaway that I am pleased to have my ankles chewed by the terriers. Despite voting on every occasion against hunting with dogs, I am pleased to give this opportunity to check; it is perfectly legitimate and I welcome it. I did not expect to be compared to Good King Wenceslas today, but I will take that from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as the second cheer of the day and will refer to the third cheer in due course.
I am particularly pleased to tell my noble friend Lady Lister that I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that she has prayed in aid, the large number of voluntary organisations that have made submissions to the debate today and those that pick up some of the strain of the 28-day period that currently exists—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London mentioned. The Government want to make sure that the transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain is smooth and supportive.
I acknowledge the huge pressures on the asylum system. I find it very strange that the only discordant voice in today’s debate was from the Opposition Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Murray. He seems to forget that this Government have been in office since 4 July; the pressures that we are facing on hotel and asylum accommodation were generated through the actions of his Government. The hotels that were nil in 2019 are now 200. Yes, they have gone up by seven since July, but I remind the noble Lord that there is a real commitment by this Government to reduce and end that hotel accommodation. In many ways, the discussions that we are having today are part of that direction of travel.
I do not want to politicise this debate, and it has not been politicised, but I have to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench: look at the noble Lord’s record. Look at what we are inheriting and having to deal with. Speeding up asylum claims, ending hotels, establishing a Border Force security team, signing documents this week with Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and the work with Iraq—all those things are designed to start to pick up the mess that we inherited only five months ago. I will end the party-political knockabout at that point and return to the consensus that there was from all sides of the Chamber in the rest of the debate.
The focus of this debate was the 56-day period that my noble friend mentioned. Clause 1(2) of the Bill determines that the 28 days shall be 56. The current process is that, following the service of an asylum decision, an individual continues to be an asylum seeker for the purpose of asylum support until the end of the regular prescribed period set out by regulations.
Let me just answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth: the period is 28 days from when the individual is notified, but we think we have legal support for a pilot extending that to 56 days. If the pilot is extended in due course, we do not think we would be open to challenge but, at some point, we would have to bring an order to both Houses to regularise that. That is part of the process, and I hope he accepts that it would be done in due course.
A number of contributors mentioned the Home Office. The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of London, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Blower, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, welcomed the fact that the pilot in place has moved to 56 days from the point at which individuals are notified of their grant to leave. We expect that measure to be in place until June 2025. The Government have put that pilot in place to support local authorities during a period when we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made.
As a number of colleagues in the House have mentioned, it also coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees. It is important that we do that, and there has been general recognition that the Government moving from 28 to 56 days for the pilot is positive, but we have to evaluate its impact and look at the interim measures to make sure there are clear benefits to the proposal. Again, that has been relatively welcomed from all sides of the House, with the exception of the Opposition Front Bench, as an area to look at.
Some important points were rightly made in the discussion about implementation, evaluation, e-visas et cetera. I will try to cover those now to give some clarity on where we are. Let me take evaluation first, because it was a key point that the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chelmsford, and others, mentioned, as did my noble friend Lady Lister in her initial contribution. There are certainly criteria that we will look at in the evaluation procedure. We want to look at the provision of asylum move-on liaison officers to support granting asylum and successfully moving on from asylum accommodation and support. We have put in place £2.8 million additional outcome-based funding for select local authorities to support move-on according to prioritised need. We are looking at changes to internal processes with the move-on period and at the downstream legality of changing those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned London as an area of particular interest. Again, we will look at that geographical impact in our evaluation. It is important that we take time to evaluate the impact of the interim measure: there will potentially be a look at the net costs to taxpayers, which have been mentioned, before a decision is made on whether to make the measure permanent. It is also important that we look at how we work with local authorities and voluntary agencies, mentioned by a number of noble Peers today, on the transition to e-visas. What does all this mean in practice?
As I have mentioned, the pilot will be in place until June 2025. The evaluation will be undertaken within that period, and we would hope to be able to inform future decisions post June 2025. While I recognise that that does not meet the objectives of Clause 1(2) in the Bill that my noble friend has brought forward, I hope she will recognise that there is recognition of it being an issue which has to be addressed, and that the Government are aware of that issue and are trying to at least examine those pressures in the current circumstances.
In relation to the decision letter, my noble friend and other Peers mentioned access to UKVI accounts and the e-visa move-on period. It is important to note that newly granted refugees will have digital status at the point that a positive decision is made. They will be served after the decision. Newly granted refugees will have a UKVI account created for them. Following this, the case will be sent for discontinuation, and individuals will be sent a discontinuation letter stating an end support date. That date will be either 56 days from when the individual was notified of the decision, which includes the two days for postage that colleagues have mentioned, or 28 days from the date of the discontinuation letter, whichever is the longer. The 56 days in this pilot period will be an issue that we potentially look at.
There have been issues raised about wrong addresses. If a form goes to a wrong address or if there are errors in the e-visa, that will be reflected upon and taken into account. To those who raised digitally excluded individuals, there will be support for them. I recognise that not everybody is digitally proficient, particularly in a language which is not their first. Again, there will be support in accessing e-visas through our assisted digital support service.
Going back to a point that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, the interim scheme has been shared with local authorities as well as the NGO voluntary organisation partners. We have been engaging with partners across central and local government, and the evaluation will take place. There are no current plans to publish the details of the pilot on GOV.UK, but we are looking at how we can update that guidance in due course. We want to ensure that a range of partners are involved in that discussion and evaluation so, as a Government, we will return to that in due course.
My noble friend’s Bill also requires the end of support date to be included in the asylum decision letter. While individuals are notified in their grant letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks currently prevent us outlining the exact date at this point. The only way to implement that approach would be to delay the service of the asylum decision; we do not really want to do that. To prevent late notification of an exact support date, a safeguard is in place whereby individuals can remain on support for at least 28 days from the point when they are issued with their discontinuation letter, which includes the exact date that support will end, regardless of when the asylum decision was served. This is issued only once an individual has been given the ability to access their e-visa. I hope that that will be of interest to noble Lords who raised this.
The move-on support issue, mentioned particularly by my noble friend Lady Blower, is extremely important. Move-on support is available to all individuals through Migrant Help. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market, applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities and communications to individuals. Home Office move-on liaison officers will now also support individuals who have been granted refugee status to: understand the steps they need to take once the asylum decision is issued; support them in accessing e-visas via our assisted digital service; and give as much help as possible in relation to, potentially, integration loans that help refugees to secure critical items. Along with the devolved Administrations and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office is looking closely at how we can engage local authorities to ensure that colleagues are supported.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the issue of age dispute. I understand the point he is making. If he will allow me, I will seek further clarification with officials at the Home Office. I will discuss it with my colleague Ministers who have direct responsibility for this area and contact him in due course.
While I hope that one or two cheers will be given for what I have said to date about the Government’s approach, I must recognise that I was asked about a third cheer by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, supported by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. May I say that we will probably not get that cheer today? The noble Lord probably expected that when he asked the question. Asylum seekers can do jobs on the UK’s immigration salary list if their claims have been outstanding for at least 12 months, through no fault of their own, but we will have to reflect further as a Government on his question, so I cannot give him cause for a third cheer today. I hope he understands that we have to work our way through the myriad problems and challenges that we are inheriting—I go back to the unhelpful comments from the Opposition Front Bench, which defended a record that does not really bear defence.
We are doing work on the asylum backlog, ending hotels, the change to this pilot, the accommodation investment that we are making to improve Border Force, the closing of Scampton, the “Bibby Stockholm” and other centres, and the revision of contracts and agreements with our European partners and other countries outside Europe, such as Iraq. That is a big agenda, and my colleague Ministers are working through it to the best of their ability.
I hope that today’s progress with the Bill from my noble friend highlighting an issue that the Government have tried to respond to in a positive way, gives this House the ability to reflect on the fact that the direction of travel for the Government is one that I hope most Members will support.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the Bill, as all but one person did. Although the Minister did not give me the Christmas present that I might have liked—I did not really expect that—he did, in a sense, accept the principles behind the Bill.
I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us that we are talking about accepted refugees. She also emphasised the importance of listening to those with lived experience of the move-on period. I am not sure that my noble friend the Minister said anything about that in terms of evaluation. I will read Hansard, but I may have to come back to him on that and a few other details. It is important that the evaluation is not just of a top-down, statistical type but that we listen to what people are going through.
I am not going to get into metaphors about Good King Wenceslas, but I very much agree with the question of the right to work, because it is crucial to integration. If this group had had the right to paid work, the move-on period would be less problematic than it is.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Davies for emphasising the extent to which this is particularly experienced in London. But it is experienced not only in London. I live in the east Midlands, where I am a patron of the Nottingham Refugee Forum; I spoke very briefly about this at its recent AGM. The result was like a wildfire telegraph around the east Midlands by people working on this issue, some of whom have written to quite a few noble Lords. This is a real issue in the east Midlands as well, and more widely. It might be experienced more acutely in London but it is not just a London issue; it is much wider than that.
I cannot cover everything that was said, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked an important question, which I am not sure was answered, about whether or not somebody already in the 28 day-period is covered by this. It seems a bit unfair if one person finds that they have a much shorter period than, say, the person they have been sharing a room with. Perhaps the Minister can look at that. I must admit I had not thought of it, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will look at that point. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not answering her. I can give her limited reassurance, and I will write to both her and my noble friend Lady Lister on that point. I will also cover the Syria point, which I did not mention in my response because of the lack of time.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend; I realise that it was not possible for him to cover everything in his response. A follow-up letter to everyone who spoke would be very helpful.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blower who, like many noble Lords, supported the right to work and talked about the impact on children. I am pleased that my fellow terrier the noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the question of age assessment. I should warn noble Lords that another group of terriers will in the new year be chewing away on the question of age assessment, so they have that joy awaiting them.
I loved the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that a grace period is never for a limited pilot period and that a true period of grace would be permanent. I hope that will be taken back to the Home Office; even for those such as myself who do not have faith, it was a very telling point.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked about research. Will the evaluation try to find out the time that it takes to move on? I have noticed that a point that has not been made by Ministers recently, but that used to be made, is that somehow it is all the fault of the refugee because they do not move fast enough and do not get on with it. That is partly why I chose the particular case study that I did. Here was a young man who did everything he was supposed to do at once and ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of the asylum hotel he had been in.
Moving on to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I have been reliably told that, during the period that he was Home Office Minister, there was a 302% increase in the number of refugee households in England owed either a relief or prevention duty after leaving Home Office accommodation. The noble Lord might have wanted to reflect on whether the 28-day period was working satisfactorily. I do not care who introduced it. I am very critical of a whole lot of things that my party introduced—I think it took away the right to work, but that does not make it the correct thing to have done. I am sorry that he did not reflect on that.
The noble Lord talked about costs. As I said, the research suggests that this would save money and achieve net savings. The amount is not huge, at probably £4 million to £7 million a year. The question is who bears the cost. Is it the Home Office? Is it individual vulnerable refugees? Is it local authorities? Is it the voluntary sector? It is a question of where the costs are borne; it is not an extra cost at all.
I will continue to argue, and I think noble Lords agreed, that, welcome as this interim scheme is, the assumption should be that it will be permanent. If it all goes pear-shaped then it may be that we will want to look at it again, but we need to think about how we make it legally permanent. I intend to continue to press the Bill. If the Minister wants three cheers from me, it is a question not just of the right to work but of accepting the Bill. Although he very kindly said that he would be pleased for the terriers to continue to chew at his ankles, I would much prefer not to have to chew at ministerial ankles. I want an outcome—I do not want to carry on chewing, despite the change of Government. I will leave it at that. I commend the Bill to the House.