Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
Friday 6th September 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
(6 months, 2 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.
Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
Friday 13th June 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberAsylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 25-I Marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jun 2025)
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to quote from the Companion:
“It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7pm on Thursdays, and by about 3pm on Fridays”,
unless agreed otherwise through the normal channels. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who reminded the House on Tuesday evening of this convention. Yet this week we finished at 11.15 pm on Monday, 11.57 pm on Tuesday and 1.17 am on Wednesday. Now His Majesty’s Government, as I understand it, are seeking that we extend yet again, on a Friday, beyond 3 pm without agreement and, in fact, without even a request, flouting convention, and, if I may say so, showing a lack of consideration for the House authorities.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is the normal convention that we rise at the hours that he set out, but we also have a problem in this House at the moment: we are struggling to work to these conventions. I have struggled to get agreement with the Opposition on a number of Bills. He mentioned the late sittings this week. Sadly, we have had degroupings and Second Reading speeches on amendments and, frankly, the time has been wasted—and it is not this side of the House doing that. I want to get back to the days when we respected our conventions and could have dinner breaks, QSDs and stuff.
We timetabled today’s business to finish at around 3 pm, but, sadly, we have not got there. I also know that my noble friend Lady Lister has prepared for this Bill today and that the right reverend Prelate has come in especially to speak on this, and I am not prepared to have them come in and be wasted. I want us to carry on. If the noble Lord wants to divide the House, then may he please do so? There is no problem with that at all—but I think we need to carry on, and quickly. If we all work together, we will be able to go home very soon and deal with these important Bills.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I pick up on one comment on wasted time. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that spending just over an hour and a half on a very important Bill with many issues in it was wasting time. I thought it was important, needed examination and has significant impact, as I said in the debate on local authorities.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord goes to the Dispatch Box, he knows that I was not aware of what has gone on in the background with the usual channels, and I agree with him about brevity, but, as my noble friend has just pointed out, the debates that have just gone on have been within the rules, the speeches have not gone over time and have been done with good humour. Talking personally, I stayed late into this House until 1.15 am to support the Government Front Bench—the noble Lord’s noble friends—on a very important issue. I have spent a lot of time into the early hours this week, and my understanding was that business would end at 3 pm. I understand and agree with the noble Lord, but this noble Lord has supported the Government this week until the very early hours of the morning.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am not suggesting that about today at all. No one should think that about today. I heard only part of the debate and thought it was very good. I have huge respect for the noble Lord, as he knows, and I say it again. I know he is doing it very sincerely, but my point was about this week. We all need to respect the conventions and courtesies. As I said, my noble friend has prepared for this Bill and come in, and the right reverend Prelate has turned up here today; I am not prepared to say that we should ignore that and go home. If the noble Lord wants to divide the House, will he please do so? Then, we will decide. If not, let us get on with the Bill, and we will go home very soon.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I add just a couple of sentences to what the Chief Whip has just said. Some of us have a five-hour journey ahead of us this evening, into more rural parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he would like to bear that in mind.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I do bear that in mind, absolutely. I fully understand that. To that, I say that we either divide the House now or get on with the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the clauses in this group standing part, and have tabled the amendment in this group, to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the substance of her Bill, which it flies in the face of the work we did in Government to disincentivise illegal migrants from coming to this country. The Bill seeks to blur the principles of an effective immigration system. It takes an already generous and carefully balanced settlement, which provides support during the asylum process and a 28-day window for transition, and seeks to stretch it beyond what is reasonable, affordable or justifiable. It does so at a time when public services are straining, our housing system is under pressure and public confidence in immigration is fragile.
We have been told that this is about compassion. However, I respectfully suggest that true compassion is not measured in the number of weeks that we allow people to remain on support—I hasten to add, after their claim has failed—but lies in a rules-based system that commands public trust and operates fairly and firmly for all. Only with a system like that can we ensure that taxpayer money is responsibly spent and ensure that those with a legitimate asylum claim are not disadvantaged—punished for doing the right thing.
Extending support from 28 days to 56 is not a neutral act. It has real costs, financial, systemic and social. Logically, it doubles the burden on the taxpayer, it undermines deterrence, it creates further incentives for people to make dangerous illegal crossings, and it risks encouraging delay and non-compliance at a time when clarity and enforcement are needed more than ever.
The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would link the end of the asylum support to the issuance of biometric residence documentation. Let us be clear: that would tie public spending not to legal decisions but to administrative processes, it would shift the burden of bureaucracy onto the taxpayer and it would create a perverse incentive to delay, further muddying the boundaries of legal status and responsibility.
The message that we send with the Bill and its accompanying amendments is not one of fairness or order; it is a message that, even after your claim has been rejected, you may continue to receive taxpayer support indefinitely so long as the paperwork is pending. That is not sustainable, enforceable or fair.
Beyond the principle, we need to be clear in our deliberations today about what this proposal would do in practice. The Bill would increase the costs of a system already stretched to its limits, reward failed claims and give new arguments to those who seek to undermine our efforts to deter illegal and unsafe migration—the very journeys that have already claimed far too many lives. We support a compassionate, efficient and credible asylum system, but credibility requires that decisions mean something. When a claim is rejected, particularly after legal challenge and appeal, support must begin to taper off. It should not increase or be deferred; it should conclude as part of an orderly, lawful process. This is not a question of rejecting compassion; it is a matter of applying responsibility to the taxpayer, to the rule of law and to those who play by the rules.
For all those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the Bill and, in doing so, affirm our shared commitment to a fair but firm immigration system where the rights of refugees are respected but so, too, are the rights and responsibilities of the British public.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry it proved impossible to deal with all the amendments in a single group because that would have saved us time. I have to say that I do not recognise my Bill in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. We are not talking about illegal migration; we are talking about people who have been given refugee status. They are not illegal migrants. Please can we get that clear at the outset?
I will try to avoid repetition when I speak to my own amendments. At this point I voice my thanks to the assistance I received from the Refugee Council and from Heather Staff at RAMP, of which I am an associate, and to colleagues who have given up their time to support the Bill on this lovely afternoon.
I shall start with a couple of drafting points. First, I am bemused by the attempt to strike out Clause 3, which has nothing to do with the extension of the move-on period to 56 days, as suggested in the explanatory statement. The clause simply seeks to ensure that the notice to quit asylum accommodation is aligned with the move-on period, be it 28 days or 56 days. At present the requirement is simply a minimum of seven days, and we saw the chaos and destitution that that can cause when refugees were evicted with only seven days’ notice in late 2023.
Secondly, I am not sure that the amendment to Clause 4 does what it purports to, which is to prevent the Bill’s measures coming into force. Erskine May says that the date of Royal Assent is the date of commencement when no other date is enacted. Likewise, Section 4 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says that an Act commences
“where no provision is made for its coming into force, at the beginning of the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent”.
I do not think that is what the noble Lords opposite intended, whereas, as I will point out in the next grouping, my amendment puts the commencement date in the hands of the Secretary of State and makes it dependent on the outcome of the pilot. I am puzzled as to why noble Lords would not want to know the outcome of the pilot before trying to stop the Bill. Surely, they believe in evidence-based policy-making—though I must admit, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I suspect not.
Before I turn to the evidence that I have gathered, I shall deal with the question of costs raised by the noble Lord. As I said at Second Reading, research conducted at the LSE indicates that a longer move-on period could in fact produce a modest saving. The enthusiastic response of local authorities and voluntary organisations, which argue that the 56-day pilot is allowing more preventative work, supports that, because in the long run prevention is more cost-effective than firefighting. But we must ask: who should bear the burden of any cost—the Government, local authorities, the voluntary sector or individual refugees in exceptionally vulnerable circumstances?
It is worth noting that the Local Government Association—of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is a former chair—conducted a survey of its members prior to the announcement of the pilot. The extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as the single most effective change that could be made to the move on process. Did the noble Lord seek the views of the LGA before tabling these amendments?
I do not propose to repeat the arguments I made at Second Reading, which were based on the years of evidence we have of the immense problems caused by the 28-day move-on period. At that point, I could only surmise what doubling it to 56 days might achieve. Now, in the absence of an official interim report on the pilot—and I will talk more about that in the second group—I would like to share with colleagues some findings from a Refugee Council survey and my own unscientific gathering of information from a local authority and from refugee and homelessness organisations which supported the original Bill. I am indebted to all of them for the trouble they took in providing this information, and I am only sorry I cannot do justice to the wealth of responses they sent us. I apologise that this will make my speech on the long side, especially given the time, but the upside for colleagues is that my speech on the second group will be much shorter.
Overall, there has been a uniformly positive response, which is not to say that there have not been teething problems—partly due, according to local authorities in my home region of the East Midlands, to the short implementation time and partly due to delays in receiving necessary documentation. There have, inevitably, been variations in how well local authorities have responded to the longer move on period. Nevertheless, in the words of NACCOM—the UK-wide No Accommodation Network which works to prevent destitution among refugees, among others—the extension
“has proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”.
One of the organisations in the north-east noted:
“I think the main lesson is the 56-day period is a much more humane and smoother transition process for everyone”.
Similarly, London Councils has called it “a vital support”, and it suggests that the impact is likely to increase because the 56-day period came into effect later in some boroughs. Feedback from the East Midlands is that it has made a huge difference, and Crisis has also referred to “the overwhelming response” from its services that it should be retained.
The pilot has helped to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly among single people. Although some refugees have still ended up rough sleeping, it has tended to be for shorter periods, and Crisis staff felt that the 56 days at least “make it possible” to find accommodation. The Glass Door Homeless Charity recorded a significant drop in the number of winter night shelter guests who have Home Office accommodation departure as the reason for their homelessness.
Moreover, the pilot has enabled local authorities and other services to take a more preventative approach to the housing needs of refugees, rather than having to pick up the pieces once they are homeless—this responds directly to some of the points made by the noble Lord. What NACCOM called a
“realistic timeframe to plan and take meaningful steps towards independence”
has been important for the mental health and well-being of refugees because they are less stressed.
London Councils reports feedback from SMPs outside London showing that it has enabled more time for people with mental health difficulties or disabilities to get letters of confirmation from GPs to prove a housing need. It has also helped refugees be more of aware of their housing options and given them more time to plan, thereby enhancing their autonomy, and it enhances their chances of long-term integration.
In turn, this has reduced the pressure on services. According to NACCOM, it has increased service capacity and reduced burnout among staff and volunteers. Local authority staff are better able to do their jobs and respond to the needs of refugees. However, it is already noted that there is still wide variation in how the policy is implemented, particularly regarding what documentation triggers the homelessness application.
One point made by a number of respondents was that it has meant that more people are now in receipt of universal credit in their bank accounts when they are evicted, which helps the individual, the local authority and homelessness services. London Councils has spelled out the positive implications of this. The need for emergency financial support is reduced. Individuals are less vulnerable and stressed when they are evicted, and they are in a better place to look for work upon moving into independent accommodation. To quote Islington Council:
“previously the mismatch between move on and universal credit timescales was almost insurmountable. It’s really important that we keep this move-on period so that we don’t go back to a situation of bureaucratically enforced destitution”.
Nevertheless, there are some problems, which I do not have time to go into, other than to note that some of them stem from e-visas, which my Amendment 1, together with Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, would help to address. Unsurprisingly, a longer move-on period is not a silver bullet that can address more systemic problems, such as lack of affordability, aggravated by not being allowed to do paid work.
I hope this has given colleagues a flavour of the informal responses to the pilot in the absence of any formal evaluation so far. I hope these responses will be helpful to the Home Office. It is fair to say that every organisation that responded to me called for the pilot to be made permanent. I believe they would be horrified if they read the proposals in this group. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not press them and will be willing to wait for the outcome of the formal pilot before reaching any conclusion as to the future of the 56 days move-on period.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I spoke at the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am happy to support the noble Baroness again today.
The Second Reading was not opposed. One Member of the Conservative Benches—the only member of the Conservative Benches who spoke—raised a lot of questions. I think he opposed the principle of the Bill—though without saying so in terms, but by raising points about cost. Today, we have what are, frankly, wrecking amendments, and the noble Lord who spoke first to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill said so. He is urging noble Lords to oppose the Bill. I hope I have quoted him correctly; I did write it down.
The objections in December were about cost and things being pretty much okay. We know that things are not okay. The noble Baroness has made that very clear, both then and now. I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, but her reminder that we are talking about people who have been accepted as refugees is absolutely to the point.
I am baffled that, administratively, so many problems seem to have been thrown up by the arrangements that are in place, subject to the pilot, because to the world, the Home Office is the Home Office, as an entity. Frankly, it should be able to co-ordinate with itself, local authorities, the DWP and so on. There are many reasons why one would want to see the whole process working smoothly. It is hard to imagine that moving to 56 days would not lead to savings, as the noble Baroness said, including planning for future accommodation rather than homelessness, concurrence of universal credit and so on.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on asylum support and her Amendments 1 and 2, which would enable the Government to extend the move-on period according to their plans and timetable. The Bill is extraordinarily well timed, with the move-on period pilot coming to a close and the Government having recently published their White Paper entitled Restoring Control over the Immigration System. As the Government reduce the backlog of asylum applications and speed up the process times of applications, I suggest that this Bill does not impede but rather supports the Government as they seek to build a well-managed asylum system with integration back at its heart.
At Second Reading, I spoke of why 28 days was simply not enough time for an individual with newly granted refugee status to locate new accommodation, try to find employment and navigate a welfare system. This should now be regarded as indisputable, given that an individual cannot even access universal credit before five weeks have passed, that the majority of landlords will not even let a property before a first payment has come in and that setting up a bank account is proving difficult with an e-visa alone. On this latter point, I hope that the Government will consider issuing guidance to banking services.
I do not want to anticipate the findings of the Government’s NatCen evaluation, but local authorities and other groups supporting refugees who have kindly been in touch with me have provided overwhelmingly positive feedback, as we have heard, about the extension of the move-on period. We have to take that seriously. They tell me that it gives council officers a much more realistic timeframe in which to do their jobs well—namely, to find a suitable housing solution for refugees, decreasing the likelihood of homelessness and the need for temporary accommodation. London Councils reported that one region experienced a 24% increase in homelessness prevention outcomes. The Helen Bamber Foundation said that, of the individuals it has supported since the move-on period was extended, all had received their first universal credit payment before the date of their eviction. This not only prevents refugees falling into destitution just as they are taking their first steps to build a life outside Home Office-provided accommodation, but avoids the need for local authorities to provide emergency financial support. This will lead to savings at a time when we all know that budgets are under pressure.
I was also struck by comments that the longer period has enabled local services to build trust with families, as housing teams have been able to start moving away from an emergency response towards a more preventive and strategic approach. There has been time to assess individuals’ physical and mental health needs, as well as to consider their existing support networks so that they can work together towards housing solutions. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the final evaluation will be published. Will it include detail on the impact that the longer move-on extension has had on family stability and child poverty? Incidentally, I am sure that this will support their work ahead of the child poverty strategy.
We will hear more, I am sure, in the next grouping about the sensible provisions in Amendment 1 regarding documentation. However, making the move-on period extension a permanent feature of our asylum system will enable steps such as this to take place, which will streamline the timely delivery of key information so that the entire 56-day period can be fully utilised to support a family’s next steps.
I believe that Ministers have recognised the benefits of a longer move-on period for refugees, as well as for local authorities and the wider community, through the commencement of the pilot. I thank them for that and congratulate them on it. I now urge them to make it permanent as soon as is practical after the conclusion and full assessment of the pilot, to capitalise on the positive developments that are already taking place. Let us not forget that asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status here are unable to build a life back in their home country—however much they might want to—because it is too unsafe. The gift of more time will support refugees who have a legally established right to live here to start living well in the country that has granted them sanctuary.
I may not have agreed with the words the Prime Minister used recently to frame the Government’s White Paper, but I trust the intention is there to see neighbours from all backgrounds build a stronger and more cohesive society together. Extending the move-on period permanently would be a step towards that goal.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I came into the House today to support this Bill, and I am glad we have found the time for it. The context is that this country has a long and honourable history of welcoming refugees. That is something that we can feel proud of and from which we have benefited over many centuries. That is the background to this.
Whatever you think of the individuals who apply to live in this country and their motives, they are all entitled to due process in that application. We must not as a state put ourselves in the position of pre-empting that proper inquiry. That is why dealing with the applications swiftly is so important. I am glad the Government are pressing that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, called what is proposed here “generous”. I think that is a difficult word to apply in any circumstances, but I would use “humane” and “practical” to describe the proposal. What people need to do after the decision has been made takes time. The issue is not one of being generous; it is of giving them enough time to sort out their affairs. That is true whether the application has been agreed or not. I do not think it makes any difference to the period of time that is required to sort out your affairs.
It is quite clear from the work undertaken in the pilot study that 56 days works so much better than 28. That is as much a benefit to society as a whole as it is to the individuals. That is the point: giving 56 days works for society. That is why London Councils is so much in favour of this and wants to see the pilot extended.
The situation would be much easier if applicants were able to undertake paid work, perhaps after an initial short waiting period, and I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will take this as a further representation on the issue. Action on this would just make the situation as a whole better, as permitting them to adjust to life in their new country or make arrangements to go elsewhere is so important.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much agree with the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and everything he said. Unlike him, I had not come today with the intention of taking part in the proceedings on the Bill, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for that. Actually, after three Tory Bills in three years, I vowed that I would never again take part in an asylum and immigration Bill, but one somehow gets into things, and I will be taking part in the debates on the border security Bill.
I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I remember on one occasion sitting until 4.15 in the morning—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
It was 4.16 —I cannot remember which Bill it was; it is all a bit of a haze. Was it the Rwanda one? Being turfed out and then trying to find your way home at 4.16 in the morning, particularly as a woman, is not great. But that was that Administration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has confirmed in her opening words that we are talking about people who have had a positive asylum decision; they have refugee status or a decision on humanitarian protection. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who I think used the term “realistic”. Other noble colleagues have talked about it being pragmatic and practical. I think that is the point.
I apologise that I did not take part in Second Reading, but I understand that there is this trial going on, and I can imagine that, far from costing money, it could end up saving money, because it is an investment in the slightly longer term for people to get on their own two feet and find a job and other accommodation. They are expected to do that in 28 days and if they do not, someone has to pick up the pieces if they are destitute, under various other provisions. It really cannot be a good thing for them or for wider society if, understandably, after 28 days they have not managed to sort everything out. So I completely understand why local authorities and other bodies would be keen supporters of the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill. I very much hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are also keen supporters of the Bill, as well as, it has to be said, of the right of asylum seekers to work, as here we are talking about those who have been granted asylum.
This is all in the interests of having an asylum system that is much more efficient and costs as little as possible, which was not, I am afraid, the purpose of the last Government, who created chaos and a legacy of administrative confusion in the asylum system. This Bill goes a small way on a limited issue to try to help make things more realistic and practical, and to give people a start in integrating into and contributing to our society, which is surely what we all want.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jamieson for this group. These clause stand part notices and the amendment seek fundamentally to oppose the purpose of this Bill. The Bill seeks to provide an extension to the period in which those who have failed to secure an asylum claim can continue to receive support for housing and subsistence at the expense of the taxpayer.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This Bill is about people who have succeeded in their claim for refugee status, so can the noble Lord’s remarks please be put on a premise that is true to the facts?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall continue and maybe it will become clear to the noble Baroness.
Once a claim for asylum has been determined and found to be without merit, the presumption must shift. At that point, the focus should be on compliance with our immigration system, not on prolonging support mechanisms that are intended for those still within the asylum process. This Bill would do precisely the opposite. By this stage, the decision has been reached. The current system balances support for the person in question while recognising that the person has, according to the determination reached, no reason to remain in the United Kingdom.
We have a duty to the person in question, but we also have a fundamental duty to the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, foots the bill. By extending the support period from 28 to 56 days, all we do is risk creating a further incentive for delay and non-compliance. It sends entirely the wrong message, not just to those currently in the system, but to those considering making unfounded claims in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I am sorry, but I am really confused, because what the noble Lord has said conflates two issues: those who have not been given leave to remain and those who have and for whom therefore the extension period is in order to give them a little bit longer to sort themselves out. They have been given their permission. Perhaps the noble Lord could either explain what I am failing to understand or clarify whether his point is about those who have been given leave to remain or who have not.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
As it is Committee, I am allowed to speak more than once. This Bill is not about people who have not been given leave to remain; it is about people who have received refugee status. The reason why I brought forward the Bill originally—I have been campaigning on this for years—is the heartache felt by refugees who finally reach the promised land, in a sense, by being recognised as having refugee status and then find themselves destitute. This is who we are talking about. We are not talking about people who have no right to be here; we are talking about those whose right is recognised. That is the whole point.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness says, but I am not quite sure whether the Bill is therefore clear enough in what it states. I will continue, and perhaps the noble Baroness will bear with me.
When British citizens are suffering from a stagnated economy, sky-high taxes, spiralling unemployment and failing public services, to ask them to pay more for those who have had their asylum claims rejected is unacceptable. Recent analysis has shown that the entire annual tax bills of 582,000 people—equal to the population of Manchester—go on housing migrants. In our submission, the tax bills of British citizens should go on supporting the services that British citizens use. We should not be diverting such a volume of taxpayer resources to housing those who do not contribute to the system themselves. I certainly would not want to see any additional cost to local authorities.
This comes on top of the £54.2 million that last year went to legal teams seeking to thwart deportations or argue that asylum seekers should remain. The asylum seekers we are talking about already benefit from millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. As I said earlier, the crisis is worsening and the costs are spiralling—and this is all before the proposals put forth by the noble Baroness are considered. Extending the period of support from 28 to 56 days would have an immediate effect on the current cost that we are footing.
We must also take into account the incentive effect that this would have on those seeking to come to the UK. The numbers are already up 30% on last year and if people-smuggling gangs were able to tell their clients that the period for which they could subsist at the expense of the UK taxpayer had doubled, this would surely make the surge of people coming here illegally and dangerously even more extreme. It is absolutely vital that we do not create further incentives for people to make illegal and dangerous crossings into the country.
This is the compassionate position to take. Small boat crossings have spiralled in the last year and, very sadly, so have the numbers of those who have died trying to cross the channel illegally. Being in favour of changes that sustain and risk augmenting such scenarios is to support a system that is dangerous, exploitive and deeply unfair on those who do use safe and legal routes.
We need to deter people from making this perilous journey, not encourage them with the promise of extended financial support at the taxpayer’s expense—which would be the direct consequence of this. Moreover, this extended support is not cost neutral; it comes at a time when the pressures on our public services, local authorities and housing system are already acute. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund an extra month of housing and financial assistance for individuals who have no legal right to remain in this country. Every additional day of support after a failed claim represents not just a cost but a delay in the fair and orderly functioning of our immigration system.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and, at two points in particular, a confusing debate from my perspective. Before I go into some of the detail of my noble friend Lady Lister’s Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill, I want to respond to the intention to oppose Clause 1 and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench opposite. It was—if I would not say reckless—an irresponsible approach to a debate that needs more light and far less heat regarding how we, as responsible politicians, talk about immigration and asylum seeking.
To my mind, it is very clear. We are talking about what happens when, through a process that we are doing our damnedest as a Government to speed up, an individual’s asylum claim is granted and how they are then moved on and integrated into the community, as we all wish to be. This is not about deterring small boats per se; it is not about smashing the boats and the fact that too many migrants are taking away resources and undercutting British workers, or any of the rhetoric that we might have heard from the Benches opposite.
Let me clear: the Government are committed to reforming the asylum and immigration system so that we deter dangerous crossings and provide safe and legal routes where applicable and that, when people make an asylum claim, that claim is adjudicated and determined as quickly as possible. If that claim is found to be wanting and is rejected, that person should be deported. If it is not, they should be moved on—a phrase that I am not keen on—and integrated into the community. This is what the Bill is about. I am sorry that the Benches opposite, particularly the Opposition Front Bench, did not recognise that and address their remarks accordingly.
I want to reiterate the comments made by the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, at Second Reading, though noble Lords will be glad that I will not speak at as much length. The Government fully recognise the need for a smooth transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those who are recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain. I reiterate what has previously been acknowledged. We have huge pressures in the asylum system. The Government are working to ensure that individuals have the support that they need following an asylum decision.
There has, understandably, been some focus today on the 56-day pilot scheme that is in place, which I will spend a little time talking to. In December, the Home Office operationalised—again, a word that I am not keen on—a pilot to extend the move-on period so that individuals have 56 days to make move-on arrangements from the point at which they are notified of their leave to remain. The pilot is due to conclude shortly. The Government have put this pilot in place to support local authorities during a period where we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made because we are speeding up the system, as well as it coinciding with the recent transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees. I suspect that we will go on to that subject in the next group of amendments.
The Government firmly believe that this is a sensible and pragmatic approach to take while we bring the system back into balance. It is important that we take our time to evaluate the impact of these interim measures because, although there may be clear benefits to the proposal, careful analysis needs to be done to consider the full impacts, including those on the taxpayer, before any permanent changes are made. A wide range of stakeholders have been invited to take part in the evaluation, including local authorities—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, will be pleased to hear that—voluntary and community sector organisations and individuals with lived experience. The final evaluations are due later this year and a report will be published, subject to peer review and ministerial clearance.
To answer the first of the questions posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, our intention is that the final evaluation findings will be available to Parliament by the end of the year. To answer her second question, the target outcomes are being explored. They might touch on, and raise responses related to, stability and child poverty, the improved service user experience as part of the move-on journey and how successful the improved early integration outcomes for newly recognised refugees have been in terms of access to universal credit, employment, housing, et cetera.
On that note, I mention briefly the move-on support, including the introduction of move-on liaison officers, which is being evaluated alongside the pilot. It is worth saying that support is available to all individuals through Migrant Help. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying for universal credit, as well as signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing. We have also improved our communications, including making our letters to individuals clearer and providing information earlier in the process.
As I said, we have recruited 72 asylum move-on liaison officers, who offer face-to-face support to individuals newly granted refugee status so that they understand the steps they need to take once their asylum decision is issued. This assistance includes, as I mentioned, removing e-visa barriers and supporting with universal credit, housing applications and refugee integration loans. These officers work alongside Migrant Help and local authorities to identify and resolve issues. They are spread across the country in eight regions, covering more than 40 local authority areas, and are deployed where there is the most pressure and need in the system.
I will say more about the e-visa system in our debate on the next group of amendments, as I said. For the sake of brevity, I will conclude my remarks there, but I hope that our debate on the next group of amendments can be conducted on the basis of what the Bill and the amendments actually talk to, rather than what we might like them to talk to.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this matter. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for clarifying—it is an important clarification—that the aim is that the clause should apply only to people where there has been a determination that they have leave to remain, not to those where the determination is that they have been rejected. That is my understanding of what the noble Baroness said. Our concern on this side is that, with the way in which the Bill is written, this measure could potentially apply both to those who have leave to remain and those who have been rejected. Obviously, I do not want to withdraw this, because that is not the process. However, we wish to leave open the fact that we want clarity—and want there to be no confusion—that this measure would not apply to those who have had their case determined and rejected.
This is a critical point on which we would like some assurance and to which we will come back in terms of the drafting of the Bill. The points that we have made about those who have had their application rejected are perfectly valid. I have not heard anyone here say that, for those who have been rejected, they have an objection to our comments. This measure is for those cases where people have had their application accepted, so to speak. I completely understand the comments that have been made in this Chamber—if I am entirely honest, when I was the chairman of the LGA, I pushed for something not entirely dissimilar—but I would definitely say that this is not what we should be doing for those who have been rejected.
We are looking at the drafting to make sure that this is absolutely clear and cannot be misinterpreted by some eagle-eyed lawyer. Obviously, I am not going to withdraw my clause stand part notice, because that is not the process here; I just wanted to be very clear about where our concern is, which is in the drafting. We want to make absolutely certain that this measure does not apply to those who have been rejected.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Lord is making some helpful remarks. I am not an expert on the Bill’s drafting but, to extend his remarks and in particular with his local government experience, if he gets the clarification he seeks, would that mean that he and even the Opposition Front Bench would feel able to support the purpose of the Bill, even if they slightly disagree with its drafting?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am trying to remember a great quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson: the noble Baroness is tempting me to go to places I would rather not go.
“Issuing of biometric residence document(1) Section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Interpretation of Part VI) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (3), insert “, subject to subsection (3A)”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where—(a) the Secretary of State notifies the claimant that his decision is to accept the asylum claim,(b) the Secretary of State notifies the claimant that his decision is to reject the asylum claim but at the same time notifies the claimant that he is giving the claimant limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or (c) an appeal by the claimant against the Secretary of State’s decision has been disposed of by being allowed,then the period prescribed under subsection (3) may not begin until the claimant has access to a relevant biometric immigration document.(3B) for the purposes of subsection (3A), a relevant biometric immigration document is a document that—(a) records biometric information (as defined in section 15(1A) of the UK Borders Act 2007); and(b) is evidence of leave to remain in the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require a newly recognised refugee to have access to a biometric residence document that can be used as proof of immigration status and identity before the start of the prescribed period between a refugee being granted refugee status and the ending of their eligibility for accommodation and financial support provided by the Home Office.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 3. Amendment 4 is simply consequential.
To go back slightly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for that clarification. I do not know whether he has looked at the legislation that would be amended by this Bill. That would probably make it clear who we are talking about, but I will of course talk to the person who drafted it—who I have to admit is not me—to make sure that there is no possible loophole there. I am pretty confident that there is not. It is rather unfortunate that the Front Bench spoke as if it were purely about illegal migrants. I do not think that they would be covered. Anyway, we will look at it and I thank the noble Lord for that helpful clarification.
Colleagues might be surprised that I am trying to amend my own Bill. I can assure them that it is not a cunning plot to keep them, including my noble friend the Minister and now my noble friend the Chief Whip, here on a sunny Friday afternoon, but there is a reason for it. As we have already heard, just a few days before Second Reading, the Home Office made the very welcome announcement of a pilot extension to 56 days, which is due to conclude in June. It seems sensible that the Bill should take account of that, hence Amendment 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to determine when Clause 1, which extends the move-on period, should come into force. This would follow the completion of any trial period, such as the one that is currently under way. Thus, the Bill puts the introduction of its main clause in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that my noble friend the Minister might look kindly on that.
Amending the Bill in this way would also provide an opportunity to take account of the rollout of biometric residence documents, or eVisas, which can be used as proof of immigration status and identity. Thus, Amendment 1, in conjunction with Clauses 2 and 3, would ensure that a refugee received this document, along with other documents required to access services, before the move-on period started. At present, different documents are sent at different times from different parts of the Home Office, some once a move-on period has already started. The aim is to simplify the process by ensuring that refugees have all the necessary documentation before the move-on period starts ticking. If they have not been given refugee status, they will not get these documents, so the Bill will not apply to the people the noble Lords opposite are afraid it might apply to.
At Second Reading, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, raised an objection to Clauses 2 and 3, which, as I have said, would ensure that refugees receive all the necessary documents and information prior to the start of the move-on period. He said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 13/12/24; col. 2012.]
But I am advised by the Refugee Council that this would make little difference, given the period that asylum seekers have had to wait already, and better that the delay occurs before the move-on period than during it, given that failure to receive all the correct documentation at the outset could, in effect, eat into the move-on period. Of course, the answer is to speed up sending all the documentation.
As it stands, the Refugee Council survey I mentioned earlier and the experience of HIAS+JCORE, the UK Jewish voice on refugees and racial justice, indicate that, in London at least, delays in receiving documentation mean that the 56-day move-on period is, in practice, quite a bit shorter in some cases.
My noble friend the Minister has answered some of the questions I was going to ask about the pilot, which is great. He said it would be ending “shortly”, but that is one of those Civil Service words that means different things to different people, so it would be helpful if he could be a bit more precise. Can he also tell us what allowance is being made in the pilot for the fact that e-visas are being rolled out during this period, which could complicate things, and that a high number of asylum decisions are being taken?
I finish by citing the response of two organisations from the housing and refugee sectors. First, the Chartered Institute of Housing warmly welcomes the Bill—after it has been amended by these amendments, as I hope it will be eventually—and urges the Home Secretary either to facilitate its passage or to otherwise legislate to make the 56-day move-on period permanent. Clearly, the facilitation of the Bill’s passage would be much simpler than new legislation. As I have said, the implementation of the move-on period would be in the hands of the Home Secretary following the pilot. Without legislation, it would be too easy for a future Government to revert to 28 days without parliamentary scrutiny, and the first group of amendments we debated testifies to that. Given the enthusiastic response of all sectors to the pilot, including of course local authorities, I really think there is no going back.
Secondly, I give the last word to NACCOM, which says that
“the extension has already proved cost-effective, humane and legally coherent. Making it permanent is a pragmatic step towards stability for those granted safety in the UK”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we were told, I think, that the pilot will be until June, which gives a few more days. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that, in parliamentary terms, “shortly” is a rather expansive term.
I will ask the Minister about the evaluation. He will obviously not be able to tell me about any of its outcomes, but I hope that it will be a relatively speedy process. In preparing for today, I saw a request somewhere that organisations working in the sector to support refugees should be included in any consultation—and there should be consultation on what the evaluation shows, how the proposal can be taken forward and whether any tweaks should be made. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today—he will not be in a position to do so—but I add my voice to that request, which seems to be, to quote, “entirely humane and practical”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has tabled to her Bill.
I will address my remarks primarily to her Amendment 1. While the intention behind the amendment may be to ensure a smoother transition for asylum seekers, it introduces significant practical, legal and policy problems that risk undermining the efficient functioning of the asylum system. First, from my understanding of it, the amendment, in effect, makes the issuance of a biometric residence document a precondition for starting the clock on the post-decision support period: that is, it ties the end of taxpayer-funded asylum support not to the legal decision on status, as is currently the case, but to the administrative completion of documentation.
The Government’s decision on an asylum claim is, rightly, a legal milestone. At that point, the person is no longer an asylum seeker; they have either secured leave to remain or not. The prescribed support period is meant to bridge the gap between that decision and the individual transitioning either into mainstream services or departing the country.
This amendment proposes an administrative burden and legal uncertainty and would require the Home Office to verify the delivery of a specific document to each individual before initiating the countdown to the end of support. This tracking and compliance exercise would be bureaucratic, costly and ripe for legal challenge.
Let us not forget the wider context: it is about taxpayer-funded support being an already generous and necessary safety net during the asylum process. Once the claim is accepted or otherwise determined, the individual is expected to move into mainstream provision or make arrangements for return. Delinking that transition from the legal decision itself and instead tying it to the issuance of paperwork is not only unworkable but unfair to the taxpayer and is an unwise policy.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate on this group of amendments. I will try to be brief, given the time.
My noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment effectively requires that the grace period not begin until an individual has received their e-visa. A newly granted refugee has digital status at the point when a positive decision is made. Therefore, they are able to commence the move-on process and access some key services prior to their e-visa account being created. For example, some government departments have systems and services that allow them to access information about the person directly, avoiding the need for the person to prove disuse of their e-visa. We have revised our communications to individuals prior to decision and within the grant letter to make this clear.
However, we recognise the importance of individuals having access to their e-visa before their asylum support is discontinued. That is why we currently have a safeguard in our process whereby support will not be discontinued for at least 28 days after an individual has been given access to their e-visa. Where there is an error on the e-visa which is reported to the Home Office and confirmed as an error that needs correcting, we will generally extend support until that error is corrected. Support in accessing an e-visa is available via our assisted digital service for those with limited digital skills, and charities and voluntary organisations across the UK are being funded to provide free help and information to vulnerable people who need support.
There was also some discussion of the notification process following a decision and interaction with the move-on period. While individuals are notified in the grant letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks prevent us outlining an exact date at this point. Despite this, every effort is made to ensure that these notices are provided as early as possible. The only way to implement such an approach would be to delay serving the asylum decision, as my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint said at the Second Reading. I am sure that all Members would agree that every effort should be made to serve an asylum decision as soon as we possibly can.
On the timing of the pilot, I am afraid I will not be able to provide much greater comfort to my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We are considering the exact date when the pilot will end. We will write up a suitable notice to confirm this date, and all individuals will continue to receive 56 days’ notice until this point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about involving refugee organisations. I use this opportunity, given that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned it, to commend the work of HIAS+JCORE, an organisation I have some familiarity with, particularly under the leadership of my friend Rabbi David Mason. I am not in a position to give the detail at this point, but it is something we can reflect on.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Lister and all who have participated in today’s Committee. It is important not to see the extension of the move-on period of 56 days as a simple and straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why an array of wider support measures and initiatives are in place. We remain committed to working with partners so that we can continue improving the processes, communications and services that support a smooth transition from Home Office support for newly granted refugees.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, both now and earlier—at least those who have spoken in support of the amendments and the Bill. I will need to look at the details of what both the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend the Minister said. I addressed the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, made at Second Reading about delay, because actually better delay before rather than after the move-on period starts, and that may be something that the department could reflect on.
One thought struck me as the noble Lord was speaking: when the pilot ends, we do not want to go from the 56 days back to 28 days, then the evaluation may shows that actually it was very successful and the Home Office thinks “Yes, actually we should stick with 56 days”. I am not asking for an answer now, but I suggest that the Home Office consider that the 56 days should last. It could stop being evaluated at a certain point, but, until a decision is made about the future, it should carry on at 56 days, because it will confuse everybody if we go back to 28 days and then forward to 56 days. I will leave it at that.
I thank people very much for engaging. Again, I apologise that people have been kept so late, but that is largely beyond my control. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn, and, in doing so, I wish everyone a good weekend, although not as long as normal. I particularly thank all the members of the staff of the House for their, as always, excellent service this week.