Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateFriday 13th December 2024
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberAsylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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]
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateFriday 13th June 2025
(1 year, 4 months 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)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL] 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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.
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.