Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment)Order 2026; Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

I beg to move that the House >> I beg to move that the House approves the draft. Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) Amendment and Revocation Regulations 2026 and and Revocation Regulations 2026 and the draft Criminal Justice International Cooperation Act, 1990 Amendment Order 26, both of which were laid before Parliament on the 26th of February, for ease of discussion. If the House will allow me, I will allow the first of these two instruments to be known as the regulations and the second as the order.

These instruments are

16:34

somewhat technical in nature, but they do have a bigger picture behind them. Both instruments are intended to tackle the terrible harms caused by illegal drugs. Drug misuse has a profound impact on crime, on health and productivity. Nearly half of acquisitive crime and over 50% of homicides are linked to drugs. And in 2024, drug misuse deaths in England reached almost 3500, the highest on record. Drug misuse costs the economy some £20 billion a year, and the government is committed to protecting our communities by reducing drug related harms.

Drug precursor chemicals, or DFCs, are used to make illicit drugs, but some have industrial legitimate uses. Controlling them in a vital way to tackling drug harm is a very, extremely important, not only the way in which we do that, but also as a vital string to our bow economically. It's always better to address a problem closer to source. And so it has been better to tackle drug supply before a drug has even been made. There are two ways in which we control dpcs.

The first is to place controls on their legitimate use to minimise the chance of substances were intended for bona fide industrial purposes and could be diverted to producing illicit drugs. The regulations we are debating today address this issue. The second way is to criminalise the deliberate illness of Dpcs for the purposes of making drugs, and the order we're debating today addresses that. If I may take, first of all, the regulations companies currently must, in most cases, apply for licenses and other authorisations to use Dpcs.

They must also, in most cases, properly document and label DPC consignments and they must always tell the National Crime Agency whenever they have reason to believe a DPC may be diverted for illicit use. Those requirements were an EU responsibility before Brexit. Since then, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, whereas in Great Britain a similar system applies as assimilated law. These regulations correct some deficiencies in that assimilated law. Firstly, Ministers currently do not have an effective power to control dpcs which are new in Great Britain.

So the list of chemicals subject to control in Great Britain as it was, has been effectively frozen in time since January 21st. Since then, the EU has controlled ten new Dpcs and 14 related substances. Those controls have therefore applied in Northern Ireland, but not in the Great Britain area on the other side of the Irish Sea. The substances are used to produce MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, with fentanyl, whose deeply harmful nature is sadly all too familiar, particularly in use in America.

Some substances, often known as crystal meth and amphetamine, are also used. Of all those except amphetamine are class A drugs and for good reason. Fentanyl can, amongst other things, cause people to stop breathing. Ecstasy can lead to serious consequences, particularly for heart conditions, blood pressure problems, epilepsy or asthma. It was mentioned indeed 78 times on certificates for deaths registered in England and Wales in 2024. Better phetamine. Quite apart from its severe health consequences, is also linked to violent crime, so the regulations today will add those ten dpcs and related substances to the control regime in Great Britain, and will allow Ministers to control others in future.

The second deficiency in the assimilated law is that there is currently no clear statutory mechanism to control the movement of dpcs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulations will now provide one. Such controls are a vital way to prevent diversion of dpcs, to illicit use and to discharge our responsibilities under under international law and at the same time, we recognise the importance of enabling trade to flow as smoothly as possible within the UK and we're therefore now waiving the need to pay a fee.

Finally, while the requirements on companies across the UK to label and document transactions involving Dpcs, and indeed to tell the National Crime Agency of their suspected diversion apply to one set of chemicals, the criminal offences for not doing so apply to a different set and a smaller set. It cannot be right that these are legal requirements on companies, but no sanctions for ignoring them. The regulations will therefore ensure that the offences apply to the same dpcs as do the positive requirements.

If I turn to the order, this instrument extends the list of dpcs, which is. It is a crime to supply or make. If the defendant knows or suspects, they will be used to make controlled drugs. The order adds to that list 12 Dpcs and 16 related substances, which the United Nations controlled

16:39

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

between March 2014 and March 24th. These dpcs were also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine or methamphetamine. This should certainly have been done earlier. I cannot comment on done earlier. I cannot comment on why it was not as this was indeed under the time of a government, not under the time of a government, not of the control of my party. But I know that my colleague, the Minister for Policing and Crime has Minister for Policing and Crime has taken very seriously a number of criticisms made by noble Lords on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and therefore has acted accordingly.

Finally, in line with usual practice, I just want to draw the attention of the House to the correction slip for the regulations. This corrected to minor typographical errors. One change is a reference from the Great Britain to Great Britain, and the other replaces a reference to the third occasion when a phrase appears on the second occasion. I hope those minor amendments are accepted. While I'm on my feet on the matter of drugs, can I also just take one opportunity just to make a comment on a question I answered from the noble Lord Storey last week about nitrous oxide on the 13th of April.

I stated in that question that in the year, September 24th to September 25th, there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date. In fact, in the period it was in fact October 24th rather than September 24th, and the 242 convictions and 232 sentences were for possession or supply and mostly possession. Small clarification, but just important to place on record. So in summary, my Lords, the government is unwavering in its commitment to tackle illegal drugs which cause misery and harm across society, and these two instruments will aid us in their critical efforts.

And I beg to move.

16:41

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The agreed to. controlled drug precursor chemicals should be in sync across the UK and in sync with international agreements we have signed up to, is a clear and reasonable one. More complicated, however, is the process by which we've got here, and what's less stressful straightforward is the question of whether the Home Office is applying the right lessons from the mistakes involved. The controlled drugs. I would give the government the power to align the lists of drug precursor chemicals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in future.

Given the problems of delay that have brought us here today, with it taking five years since the end of the implementation period for this s I to come forward, could the noble Lord, the Minister set out whether the Department has any set targets or guidelines for how quickly it will move in future to use such powers? The Home Office has said that work on this s I started in 2024, and this is one of our legislative priorities. Yet now only in 2026 do we get the S I in Parliament.

Even if we start the clock after the 2024 general election, that's still the best part of two years to serve up in C

16:42

Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)

- -

that was already delayed and running late. It's the noble Lord, the Minister happy with that sort the Minister happy with that sort of turnaround time. And is anything being done to speed up the secondary legislation process in secondary legislation process in the Home Office? Turning to the criminal justice side, this involves even longer delays, in involves even longer delays, in this case a failure to act for at least a decade to update domestic law in the light of international agreements. A delay of at least a decade in an area of criminal justice that has consistently been a priority of different home secretaries and indeed different governments.

A decade full of tough rhetoric about crime, a decade full of requests for new legislation from the Home Office, and it also a decade, a decade of failure to keep on top of what should be basic, pretty, pretty basic administrative tasks, having a proper legislation log, having proper handover notes and processes for staff, and keeping a list of drugs up to date. Yet we know that that wasn't the case. Of course, the noble Lord, the Minister and the Home Secretary can reasonably point out that they were not imposed for most of that decade.

And in correspondence with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Commission, the relevant Minister has set out remedial steps, which is welcome. What leaves, though, are to. What this leaves are two concerns. Firstly, the very basic nature of the mistakes, the absence of a proper legislation log and the absence of proper handover processes, particularly in a department where the where staff churn is a regular and even frequent occurrence. Over the years, when these basic measures were missing, a variety of different staff would have churned through posts that in some way should have been aware of, responsible or responsible for such issues.

That these problems, therefore persisted for so long suggest a systemic flaw in the management process, processes or quality in the department. Moreover, as the Home Office has, according to its correspondence with the Slsc, decided not to try down which not to track down which staff were involved. It's quite possible that people who made mistakes didn't know and still don't know and need to learn from these mistakes. Those who have moved on to other roles may may well be making the same mistakes elsewhere.

It's welcome that the Minister, Sarah Jones, told the SLC in response to the committee's inquiries, that she would straight away get the Permanent Secretary to find out whether similar problems to the one behind the criminal justice system are occurring elsewhere in the departments, but I note that this action to check if there are other problems has only started because the Slsc asked. Which is important, but it's also important this action should be taken as soon as the problem came to light.

Surely a well functioning department with Ministers and senior civil servants who were on the ball would see this s I coming through the system and ask, what checks have we made to see if there's more and more widespread problem? Rather than wait for a parliamentary committee to ask? So I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can tell us what action has been taken now to ensure that staff involved in these mistakes are aware of and can learn from their role in them and in future.

Will the Department be more proactive in seeking out whether identified problems are more widespread than waiting for a parliamentary committee to ask? I hope, too, that the Minister can update us on the progress that the Permanent Secretary has made with their investigations, and whether any further action is being taken. It may be that this is purely isolated problem, but we need a real commitment from the department to learn all the lessons, and I hope that's what we'll hear in due course from the Minister.

16:46

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these two draft instruments, which together update the framework governing drug precursor precursor chemicals. And on these benches, we support the objectives of these measures. Drug precursors play a critical role in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances, and it is right that the law keeps pace with international developments and the evolving methods of criminal networks. Strengthening controls and closing loopholes is therefore both necessary and welcome. The draft Statutory Instruments would bring the UK, of course, closer into closer alignment with its obligations under the 1988 UN convention.

By updating the list of substances for which it is a criminal offence to supply or manufacture, where there is knowledge or suspicion of illicit use. They also seek to address deficiencies in the current regime by aligning the list of controlled substances with those subject to criminal sanctions. My Lord Marks the while the substance of these changes is sensible and as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has observed, not in itself controversial. The context in which they arise warrants some reflection.

The committee have pointed to delays in updating domestic legislation to reflect changes to international obligations, and to the time taken to resolve discrepancies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the implementation period. There are also concerns about the clarity of the statutory basis for certain authorisations and fees, and whilst these issues are now being addressed, they underline the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks remain up to date, coherent and legally robust. My Lords, the House is entitled to expect that such matters are identified and acted upon in a timely and consistent way.

So, in conclusion, my Lords, we support these instruments and the improvements they make to the enforcement framework. And again, I'm grateful to the Minister for bringing these draft instruments to the House today, and I look forward to his response.

16:49

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful for the comments >> I'm grateful for the comments that have been made, and I do understand the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's Legislation Scrutiny Committee's concerns on this point. What I can say, and I hope that the noble Lady will forgive me for this, is that the government came into office in July 24th, and as soon as we identified the challenges that the orders have made in terms of them not being implemented previously, we've taken action to try to bring this back into some sort of order.

There have been and there were self-evidently challenges in relation to a number of issues. I can't ultimately comment on what happened under previous governments, but I can confirm that we took action on this issue as soon as it was identified. I can also confirm that officials have. I think this goes to the point that the noble Lady mentioned. Reviewed electronic records to seek to understand why the act was not updated earlier. Those records did not indicate the reason for these omissions.

And that is a fault, and it's one that we are looking to review. It may be that since the UN controlled no DFCs between 2000 and 214, awareness of the need to update the act when it did so was lost within the department. But to help mitigate against that in future, we've created now a log of drugs legislation to ensure this does not happen again. And through the order we're debating today, we're trying to put those emissions right. And as the Minister for Policing and Crime set out in a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the 23rd of March, the government understands the committee's concerns about record keeping, which have likely contributed to the delay in including the 12 DFCs and the 16 other elements in the Criminal Justice International Cooperation Act of 1990.

As a result, as I've said, those drugs legislation logs have been created, and whilst the government considers that the gap in knowledge is unlikely to have wider implications across the Home Office, I can assure noble Lords that the Minister for Policing and Crime has raised this issue with the Permanent Secretary. She's asked him to ascertain what Home Office legislation is dependent on or affected by international obligations, and also how we monitor those international obligations to ensure that any changes are reflected in UK law.

I should also say that in answer to the noble Lord Davies of Gower, I know also that the the issue of charging and authorisation of fees being paid was an important issue. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did look at the issue of plans for fees which were previously charged. I'm happy to confirm today that we will be offering any all refunds to those who have been affected. The total sum is only around £3,000, but it's still an important issue and we'll be looking at how we can manage that in due course, and I will be certainly examining that with my colleagues in future.

We are where we are, my Lord's. The government has tried to make some changes. It has been both of these orders brought forward both the changes today to put us. In order to ensure that there is a United Kingdom approach, and those regulations are now in order. And I commend both to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as of that be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors). (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Lord Revocation) Regulations 2026 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is that the second motion in the name of Lord Hanson of Flint in the name of Lord Hanson of Flint be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it, and we'll now move to the next business, which is immigration and asylum provision of accommodation to failed Asylum Seekers Amendment Regulations 2026 to be debated with one other motion. Lord Hanson of Flint.

16:53

Orders and regulations: Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026; Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

I the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Amendment Regulations,

16:53

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

2026 and the immigration and asylum provision of accommodation for Failed Asylum Seekers Amendment Failed Asylum Seekers Amendment Regulations 2026. Also, my Lords, these instruments were laid before these instruments were laid before the House on the 5th of March 2026, and they relate to the government's stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified. These instruments are a justified. These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it, while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse.

My Lords might be interested in the fact that as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels in the financial year 2425, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom. Now, the government inherited that situation and has to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs, and the government has already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% in that period.

And we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer. The instruments before the House today, the first one removes the duty to provide asylum records and reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case by case decisions, and gives the government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take further action against those who do not comply with the rules.

For example, removing regulation five allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas. After explicitly confirming as part of their visa application that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay, it is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry, and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer funded support.

The same principle applies to those granted permission to work with. Asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has a legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute. In an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protect the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.

The second instrument we are debating today focuses on the issue of illegal working, and makes working illegally an explicit reason to discontinue an individual's asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support without the need for protracted fraud investigations.

Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally whilst also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lord that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement through the Statutory Instrument before the House.

Illegal working will be an explicit ground on which section four support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers. Therefore, aligning with the changes made to section 98 and section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on the 27th of March. This ensures the public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules, and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.

Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom. Crucially, none of these changes alter legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights.

Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of regulation five is an enabler for development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves, or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office, or indeed those who break UK law. This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, one that will protect vulnerable people, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence.

By tightening the eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and I would contend to the House support will be focussed on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.

16:59

Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Question is that this motion be agreed to? >> My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their place for this noble Lords in their place for this debate. As for the debate last Tuesday, and I do trust that the Minister is much. Is feeling much better. As with last week, these S's on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework that the Minister just referred to that would help this House understand the implications.

I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I can't not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service. Over a nine year period. Men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey. I recall Florence, whose backstory was filled with the most unimaginable trauma she endured years of destitution and homelessness before being finally recognised as a refugee.

Like many of the asylum seekers, gyrus UK worked with, her lifeline was a London night bus, which offered a safer alternative as a woman than street homelessness, or Cecile, an older woman of deep grace, gentleness and poise known affectionately by all as Mama Cecile. After being relocated to nine different cities under section 95 support whilst waiting for her decision, each move breaking the delicate social link she had made, she found herself then destitute and unwell.

She was saved from street homelessness by religious sisters through a generous hosting scheme, who took her in and gave her space and stability to resolve her immigration status. Davina had been housed by an acquaintance, but the quid pro quo for the roof over her head was that she would take on a level of caring responsibilities that ultimately became deeply exploitative. Research conducted by J-a-c-k found that around half of the destitute asylum seekers it supported had slept rough in the preceding year, with 1 in 5 sleeping rough in the preceding month.

Most were moving every couple of nights between numerous addresses, sleeping on floors or sofas or in armchairs. Fear was commonplace. A third said they did not feel comfortable with those they lived with. Sometimes people arrived at the friend's house where they were expecting to spend the night, only to find the door locked. It was a life of daily precarity. I recall many a conversation with women at the regular social drop, in whose descriptions of their living arrangements left me profoundly uncomfortable, and men who talked about the misery of clothes that they could never get dry as they moved between park bench friends and the all night McDonald's.

In between the headlines about failed asylum seekers are real people who struggle to get their story heard and understood in the asylum system. Doctor Jo Wilding, from the University of Sussex, has been tracking the decline in available immigration legal advice over a number of years, describing a mix of legal advice, droughts and severe lack of capacity. Trauma and destitution also make it near impossible for some to engage with the complexity of the asylum process in an orderly way.

Sometimes it is the most vulnerable asylum seekers whose story gets lost, and once they fall through the net, it gets a good deal harder to solve and will get a good deal harder. Yet, with the changes that the government are announcing, it's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that asylum support is not straightforward to access. Already, with many organisations who work with asylum seekers saying that those who should receive it are often denied it and the money involved is hardly a huge amount.

Barely paying for basics. As a children and families Minister, I remember being shocked to find out that the support provided to families specifically excludes anything, for example, to purchase toys, which was considered a luxury. It's unclear what framework and processes will be in place to remove asylum support from people seeking asylum, but this government clearly wants more power to render people destitute. And this worries me deeply because the results will be more street homelessness, more exploitation and less access to justice.

I ask the Minister, please urgently, to provide more information about its intention for these powers to publish the framework. This House cannot scrutinise this. Without that information and the organisations who will end up picking up the gap, filling in that gap and supporting people who are left, left destitute and homelessness also have no chance to plan their services without this information coming forward now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My interest is around associate and as a noble Baroness, Lady and as a noble Baroness, Lady Tether, who I think of as a noble friend, said in her deeply moving speech for the second week running, speech for the second week running, we're here debating secondary legislation that represents another step in what the Home Secretary has described as the most significant reform to our migration system in

17:05

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

reform to our migration system in modern times. In another critical report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had drawn the regulations to the attention of the House. The committee has been working overtime on asylum legislation and we should be grateful to them for their work. Once again, they complain about lack of clarity on aspects of the new policy, which I quote makes it impossible to scrutinise this measure adequately, and they draw attention to tensions and risks associated with the policy, which are not adequately addressed by the Home Office.

And once again, my noble friend, the Minister, who is always most gracious in dealing with our criticisms, has my sympathy for having to defend the regulations, though I'm glad that his throat is no longer protesting against the task and that he feels better this week. Our focus, in particular on the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support, starting with process issues. The committee yet again draws attention to the lack of consultation, which was justified in the explanatory memorandum on grounds of the wider policy development of which this change is a part.

The Home Office has given assurances that views will be sought from stakeholders once the proposals reach a sufficiently developed stage. The committee suggests that we ask my noble friend as to what criteria will be used to determine when a sufficiently developed state has been reached to trigger consultation, so I do ask that, but I would also want to put on record my view that the important principle of revoking a right to support for a particularly vulnerable group of people, as we have heard, should itself have been the subject of consultation, regardless of wider policy development, the timeline for which remains unclear.

And if, as the Home Office argues, policy is insufficiently developed for the provision of a proper impact assessment, then, as the Refugee Council argues, it should have waited and introduced a measure as part of the primary legislation expected in the next session. Indeed, as some of us argued last week, this and the changes as a whole, which my. As my noble friend Lord Dubs, who's unable to be in his place pointed out, are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees that should be included in primary legislation in the name of democratic accountability.

My Lords, I welcome the fact that despite the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support, families containing a child aged under 18 will continue to receive support for the whole household where otherwise adequate accommodation or the child's essential living needs are not being met. In line with section 122 of the 1999 act. I'd be grateful if my noble friend could confirm that my reading of this is correct, so that it's on the record. Nevertheless, I'm worried about the likely impact of the removal of the duty to provide support.

The tried to get clarification of what the M meant when it said support will remain available to those in genuine need. One example given was where an asylum seeker has the right to work. When the committee asked whether support might be withdrawn, where an asylum seeker is not able to exercise the right to work because they can't find employment, particularly bearing in mind that changes to the list of jobs they are allowed to take after 12 months could mean it becomes harder for those who don't have the necessary skills.

The answer was we are developing our policy on this. i Lords. Another example given could be supported by friends and family. How on earth would this work? Well, an asylum seeker have to give a list of friends and family, and will they then be means tested to see if they can afford to support them, even if they can afford to? There's no legal obligation to support family and friends in this way in either the short or longer term.

Personally, I find I find this suggestion extraordinary. I'm not surprised that the committee considered the inability to answer questions about the meaning of genuine need unsatisfactory, despite Home Office assurances that cases will be reviewed on a case by case basis. As my noble friend said earlier, taking account of obligations under the EC, which, as a committee notes, raises questions about staff resources. Moreover, there is an underlying issue here which is report didn't explore and that is the difference between a right and a discretionary power.

The e m states that human rights legislation and equality law mean that any changes to policy will operate within a framework that respects fundamental rights, a point made by my noble friend as to Jonathan Jones. Casey B Casey points out the Institute of Government. This means that decisions not to grant support could be subject to judicial review. But that is a last resort, and I'm concerned about the implications for everyday policy for everyday decision making. I've been around long enough to remember when some basic elements of the Social Security safety net were subject to discretion, rather than set out as clear rights.

Discretion opens a door to inconsistency and even discrimination. Not necessarily conscious. Back in 1975, the Official Supplementary Benefits Commission warned that discretion provides scope for decision makers own moral judgements to shape decisions on eligibility. So the promise that the decision will be made on a case by case basis is not necessarily very reassuring. Discretion robs asylum seekers of dependability and certainty, and reinforces their sense of charity, which the noble Lady referred to. Along with the changes debated last week.

And while it might meet the letter of our international obligations, I'm not sure it meets the spirit. As expressed in a statement from the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that asylum seekers should be able to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination. One reason why rights are so important in this context, as we have heard, is that they provide a firmer protection against destitution, although it should remember that asylum support provides a pretty minimal standard of living.

Asylum seekers are already disproportionately likely to be in deep poverty and to suffer food insecurity. And really, it's disgraceful that the press release accompanying the draft regulations had the headline asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain's generosity, once again conflating asylum seeking and illegal migration, and using pejorative terms such as handouts. As Minister Norris himself said in a debate last year, we have legal, and I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution.

End of quote. Nevertheless, the Slsc was concerned about the likely risk of destitution due to the revocation of the duty to provide support and how this could lead to crime, illegal working and homelessness. In conflict with the National plan to end homelessness. And, according to The times, the subject of an internal internal warning from the MH s c g. It notes that the Home Office has not explained how it will manage these risks, and suggests we might wish to inquire further.

So I hope my noble friend can be more forthcoming now, including the particular dangers for women who women for refugee women fear will be at increased risk of abuse, violence and exploitation, including being forced into sex work. Given my noble friend welcome repeated assurances last week that equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work. I hope he'll give this point serious consideration. And here I find it difficult to believe the explanatory note statement that no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

Again, picking up on what the noble Lady said, surely the risk of destitution could have a very significant impact on local authorities and on refugee and homelessness charities who will have to pick up the pieces. Now, before my final point on these regs, may I use this opportunity to raise the question of the move on period. As a Refugee Council points out that the third set of regulations published alongside those we are debating provided the perfect opportunity to update the previous 28 days to the 42 days now in operation.

May I ask my noble friend why this opportunity was not taken, and will it be taken soon? And is he able to tell us what arrangements will be made for monitoring the 42 days move on period, which is a real improvement that I welcome, but less than the 56 days in the initial pilot, which is what local authorities and charities had been calling for. And is he able to commit to publication of the evaluation of that pilot before Parliament is prorogued? I've raised these matters in a letter I sent my noble friend yesterday, so I apologise for repeating them today.

But anything he's able to put on the record now would be helpful. So finally, my Lords, the Slsc highlights the Alice through the Looking Glass circularity of the Home Office's response to the question as to what happens if an asylum seeker who is refused support tries to get by through working illegally, which, as we've heard from my noble friend on the other regulation we're considering, is also grounds for loss of support. The Home Office's answer is that they can reapply for support if they are destitute.

Now, firstly, I'm glad that's the case, but it does suggest that the policies have not been thought through properly as illuminated by the SLC. So that takes us back to the point made last week that this is all both too important and too complicated to be left to secondary legislation that we can't amend. Both we and our colleagues in the Commons are rendered powerless. Yet at stake is the risk of destitution for people in the most vulnerable of circumstances, all made in the name of fairness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Lord, I find myself in the happy position of rising again to agree position of rising again to agree with the government and to commend them for these particular them for these particular regulations which go some way to addressing the risk of abuse of our addressing the risk of abuse of our asylum support system. Now, these changes are a good start, but they

17:16

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

changes are a good start, but they could go further. I have 1 or 2 questions for the noble Lord, the Minister, though, in respect of each of the regulations before the House today. Firstly, in respect of the asylum support provision relating to illegal working, perhaps the Minister could tell us how it is envisaged that the government would defend a claim that. Brought by an asylum seeker or a failed asylum seeker, under the other regulations, who has been found to be working illegally and has had their support removed.

If they make an application. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister has indicated, to have support restored. If they then say that unless it's restored, the government will be in breach of its obligations under article three. How does the Home Office propose to defend the withdrawal of support in those circumstances? The second question is in relation to the removal of the duty to provide accommodation which came out of the EU Reception Condition Directive and has restored the arrangements in the 1989 act to being a power to our present asylum offering compares to asylum support offering compares to those in those countries.

And to write back to me and to put a copy of that letter in the House, assuming he doesn't have those answers to hand. But I return to my main point, which is I'm supportive of these instruments, and they're a good start, and I thank the Home Office for bringing them forward.

17:19

Lord Mann (Labour)

- -

I congratulate the Home. >> I congratulate the Home. >> Office and the direction. >> Of travel. That they're.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going on, but I have a few points, and I think the Home Office needs to consider in getting this right. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to more regularly be publishing the gender breakdown of asylum seekers, so that we can be clear that it is a representative proportion of those to whom we may offer and have an obligation. It also would be rather helpful to for the Home Office to be doing more in the international context.

I recall going with the former Bishop of Durham to Burundi, where a third of the entire population had sought asylum in a neighbouring Commonwealth country, i.e. Tanzania, a part of the Commonwealth, previously part of the empire. It does seem to me that part of our obligation to those seeking asylum is to ensure that those large numbers who temporarily had felt obliged to move to a safe haven in Tanzania were able to return as they did, but with some difficulty, back to one of the most impoverished countries in the world, i.e.

Burundi. Similarly, when I visited the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, where over a million have fled from Myanmar again, a country where we have a very long standing relationship, these are all asylum seekers, but it would be rather absurd for us to have a policy that suggests that the way to address those problems would be to facilitate those people coming to here via organised crime gangs and on organised crime gangs. It is interesting to observe how low or non-existent the number of rough sleepers is in certain parts of the country, and that that is not correlated to wealth and income in those areas, but is correlated to the amount of casual work available.

Work on farms, for example, vape shops. The new manner in this country for everyone not to wash their own car, but to pay someone else to wash their car. Now, the evidence I have seen would suggest that many of these businesses are impossible to trace. And yet the Home Office is meant to have a system for ensuring that legal working is clamped down on what further is going to be done in relation to the registration of businesses, to ensure that a business on a set and identifiable premise that someone could go in and ask for work from, is in fact a legitimate business operating within the law rather than a cash business that's facilitating the work of organised crime gangs in trafficking people to this country.

And would it not be worth considering? In the same way we have an electoral roll that it's required to be on, that there should be a business role of who is operating the business, that a local authority is required to hold, so that we can start to cut through, as we have done with some of the manipulation of companies House from abroad in illegal working in this country, and give both the country and those seeking refuge a better deal, and the criminal gangs a worse deal in their profit motivation.

17:23

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

I was going to rise after the noble Lady, Baroness Teether and Lister, to. Lister, to. >> See what. Two absolutely magnificent speeches, and to say that I agree with every single one that I agree with every single one of them, and I'm not going to aim to repeat them. I will rise saying that, but also add that it is quite telling that I am now speaking after we have heard strong support from the conservative benches for the government policy, and I suspect we may hear the same from the from the conservative frontbench as well.

As I said, I don't aim to repeat what's already been said. I'm just going to say I agree with everything both noble Ladies said, but I do just want to make a couple of points, one of which is to pick up some words from the noble Lords Minister who said rightly, most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK. And as the noble Lady Baroness Lister said, the government are under pressure on this, under pressure on these Statutory Instruments being challenged by our very hard working secondary legislation.

Scrutiny Committee said they're developing our policy in this space. Well, I've got a question for the noble Lord, the Minister, of something that could save a great deal of need to house asylum seekers. Is that developing our policy, considering allowing asylum seekers the right to work, as they have in many countries? And I will note, I'm going to applaud the government here, because we have seen a very small advance in the past few weeks. We have seen three weeks ago that asylum seeking doctors who've been seeking asylum for 12 months are now going to be able to work in the NHS and also other medical professionals.

Well, great. Although I will have to ask why they have to wait 12 months, given our great need for their services and their skills, and the fact that, of course, inevitably they're going to benefit from being able to use their skills as as long as as soon as possible. Now, I think it's worth looking at the history of that, because historically that had been the case under the shortage occupation list. And then the former government, the conservative government, replaced that with the immigration salary list in April 2024.

And we have seen the BMA reach the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Asylum Centre for healthcare, Professional Education and others were taking legal cases, and it may have been that the legal pressure was enough to make the government change its mind. But if the government is doing that, even after 12 months for doctors, why not for engineers? Why not for scientific researchers? Why not for anyone who can contribute their skills, energy, time and talents to our country, which is, of course, everybody.

So why not allow asylum seekers to work? And is the government, in our developing our policy at least considering that that's the direct question I put to the noble Lord, the Minister. I do just want to pick up one other point, because I think it really deserves to be highlighted from the noble Lady. Baroness Lister this issue of support from friends and family, and I think this picks up with the case study that the noble Lady Baroness Teather presented to us, and something that I've heard visiting refugee groups, support groups over many years, is how often a situation where someone is offered free accommodation by possibly quite distant family, possibly friends, very loosely defined.

That very quickly turns into a situation that can only be equated with modern slavery. I'm thinking of one case study that I heard very, very small, very frail older woman who ended up sleeping on a mat in the kitchen and working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. And that's the kind of situation that would appear the government is trying to force on people to create, from what it's being suggested with this friends and family situation, I want to pick up one other final point to put to the noble Lords Minister.

And I've looked at the impact assessments, and I note how the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said how inadequate they are. And actually, I just also want to add, again, repeat the point, the idea that there is no significant impact on the voluntary and private sector is just a nonsense. I'm afraid that is a nonsense statement in the intact statement. But my simple question to the noble Lord, the Minister, surely if you're going to understand the impact of these rules, how many people are going to end up homeless as a result of these Statutory Instruments? Because I think that's a question Because I think that's a question we should have the answer to.

17:28

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I apologise there will be some >> I apologise there will be some repetition of what certain noble friends, in the best sense of the friends, in the best sense of the word, have said. These S's have not surprised me, but I am rather depressed in that there is an echo in them of last week's debate changes brought in ahead of our knowing what will replace current provisions, which in fact are going to continue for the time being. Not that I anticipate what's coming with any great enthusiasm.

I understand, of course, that the duties reflected in the regulations are part of what it's hard not still to think of as retained EU law, now assimilated law, and that the power to amend expires in June. Of course, I understand the minister's nodding at that. Of course I understand that the government may want to avoid primary legislation with the opportunity for greater scrutiny and for amendment. I hoped he might nod at that. But but no understanding. This is not the same as supporting.

The Home Secretary keeps telling us that the proposals must be taken as a whole, as a package, but the elements are being disaggregated. I also wrote that I hope that one change this week would be that the Minister wouldn't be suffering the same sore throat. Some of us were not quite within distance to to chuck throat pastels across the chamber at him last week. It's not a good position for any of us to be in when we can't explain what the rules will be to people who expect to be affected by them, and I am unconvinced that these rules will have the deterrent effect which is being claimed.

The SLS, whom I thank enormously. They've done terrific work on all this notes, this and the tension between avoiding undesirable outcomes and maintaining disincentive effects, and suggests we question the Minister. So I'm so doing on how, given the risks, disincentives will operate in practice. They also suggest that we should inquire about the management of risks of withdrawing support from someone who is destitute. For whatever reason, the risks of homelessness, crime, illegal working which have already been mentioned.

And they have suggested that we raise the expected effectiveness of the change, speeding up processes relating to investigations into fraud to allow removal of support. Currently, support is discontinued, reduced or withdrawn from all of 0.0. 5% of those receiving it. Yet again, it's hard to avoid the thought that the Home Office is trying to put out a message that's been said already about its tough attitude, for political reasons that we're all aware of, though of course we may have different views of them.

The lack of substantive proposals which are in development, and the Refugee Council's entirely right, a reference to the. In its press release. We've seen this. It's not often that I would condemn the BBC for this sort of thing, but the work that it has done in uncovering crime and it is crime in the immigration industry of persuading people to come forward and claim that they are have been persuaded to make false false asylum claims.

I saw, in fact, that one person who was caught up in this was actually paid a substantial amount of money to make that claim. It doesn't seem a very. Reliable source. Yet again, I'll say that most asylum seekers do not want to be a burden. They want to work and they want to contribute to society. So it's really important that the development of the proposals includes lifting the ban on working for a year. Could we make it six months? That was the direction we were going in, make and make it impossible for asylum seekers to work in occupations and at levels which will make use of their skills and experience.

The immigration salary list has been mentioned. There is no sign either, that in all of this, though, it's implicit in what noble Lords have said that the Home Office has kept any eye on the goal of social cohesion. Support will apparently remain available to those in genuine need, but we have no definition of what this is. We do have some examples, including where an asylum seekers deliberately made himself destitute or could be supported by friends and family, and that will certainly need some fleshing out.

But both could be. And how close the family and friends need to be. My noble friend used the term precarity in respect of clients and asylum seekers situation, and that's entirely right. The assessment on a case by case basis to understand individual circumstances. Well, of course, I don't quibble at that. But what is the assessment of the additional work, which I assume will be required on the part of caseworkers? Will there be guidance on this and will it be published? How will changing the provision of support from a duty to a discretionary power impact on the methodology for setting rates for asylum support, which of course are nothing like some people would have it? Not as large as some people would have it.

Support can be removed if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a person is working illegally. Suspect rather than believe suspect is not that high a threshold. The Slsc also commented that the data available does not suggest the measures will lead to consequences in any large number of cases, and they question, as I am now doing, how effective the change will prove in practice and the reasons for prioritising this work within the Home Office. Commenting that there appears to be no intention significantly to increase the low number of cases currently being investigated.

The Home Office, we know, is moving asylum seekers from hotels. I won't start on the argument as to whether or not there's a pull factor in this. Moving to military sites, the government fact sheets describe these as better suited and at the same time more basic. I can't quite reconcile those two descriptions. The government does not disclose the detail of contracts with asylum accommodation providers, but I hope that the Minister can answer a couple of questions about hotels.

Do the contracts with hotel owners and operators, provide for the restoration of the condition of hotels? Which asylum seekers have moved out of, and if so, are estimates of the costs available? I'm not suggesting that asylum seekers set out to wreck accommodation, but necessarily surely some hotels have been adapted and they've been occupied intensively. That must take its toll. Is there a penalty for the government cutting short the contracts for the use of hotels, which it is doing and other things being equal, which they're not? That would be a good thing.

Will the Home Office be seeking a wider group of providers to service the new sites? And of course, in. I'm thinking of the poor reputation of some of those who've been working in this area. And if the Minister would like me to put in a series of questions for written answer, I'll questions for written answer, I'll do that. The factsheet on Crowborough says that the. It will be scaled up to more than 500 people. How many are there now and when is it estimated? It'll reach 500.

In other words, how many more hotel closures? And I end with the observation that the Home Office can't expect either. Third sector organisations or, as they generally refer to local authorities, to bear the burden of accommodation changes.

17:39

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed. In a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the noble Lord the Minister has said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two Statutory Instruments. The first, the draft immigration and asylum provision of accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers Amendment Regulation 2026 amend the 2005 regulations of the same name, and these draft regulations make a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations.

The changes the government is making, as the noble Lord the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. And under the 2005 regulations, there are a number of conditions that can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. And whilst illegal working is a criminal offence that does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions, this, of course, is plainly wrong and I am glad the government are making this change.

The second Statutory Instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1989 act. Section 95 only states that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary.

And this is something that I entirely support. The problem here is that whilst section 95 of the 99 act states that support may be provided. If an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the act at face value, and criticise the government's plan here for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation, and in reality, the government has a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether or not they can support themselves.

There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute, so as to gain the system and receive the generous, taxpayer funded support. And it is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduce the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The government's Asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how I welcome it? How welcome it is to see the government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even whilst they are trying to undermine it in some other areas.

And I do have one observation. However, this change would make sense if the government were adopting the conservative plans to deport all illegal immigrants, all illegal migrants, within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum or not. If they were implementing that policy, then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. But unless that open Lords Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, then there are some questions that need answering.

If the government is not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but withdrawing support from them, then what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the noble Lord, the Minister. It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The government still refuses to establish a third country removal centre to act as a deterrent. They still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum, and they still refuse to take action to end the scam.

Legal industry around the asylum system and where the government has taken action, we will commend them and as such, I do welcome these two Statutory Instruments. But the government really does still have a long way to go. To truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and the need to dramatically ramp up deportations. My Lord, it is my firm opinion that until this happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.

17:43

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower who I must remind the House, had stewardship of this challenge and problem with not with with his government, including the noble Lord Murray, whose support I welcome today. But they did have stewardship of this challenge until July the 5th, 2024. And what we have tried to do since that date is to make some progress on the 400 plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds, with a backlog of asylum claims, with, in my view, debateable.

I know with the noble Lord very little action on the question of small boat crossings with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims. And what we've tried to do is to put in place since July 2024, a number of steps to both speed up the claim of asylum, and to understand that we do get to people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we've now done to around 400, down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe are existent now.

It's an ongoing challenge, an ongoing process, but we're trying to do that in the context of published documents, published papers and approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations. Which brings me to the orders before the House today. As I said in my introductory comments, revoking the duty will allow the government to revert to the power to provide asylum support contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which allows a more flexible approach to providing asylum support, ensuring that the system is targeted to those who genuinely need it, and the revocation today is an enabler for developing a more new, more flexible asylum support framework.

In line with the document that we produced at the end of last year or early this year, restoring order and control of policy direction in this field. Now, I just say to all the contributors to the debate that no immediate operational changes to asylum support eligibility will result from the revocation alone. Today, as a new policy is being developed, the intention is not to withdraw or deny support from those who need it, but to reduce misuse and to align with the wider asylum reforms that were bringing forward.

And I can confirm to my noble friend, Lady Lister, that support will continue to be provided. Where an eligible person has a child dependent under 18 years of age, in line with section 122 of the 1999 act. But a discretionary approach will allow the Home Office to withhold support from individuals who do not require it, including those who have permission to work and therefore can support themselves. Individuals who have intentionally made themselves destitute, and those who fail to comply with conditions set by the Home Office or those who failed to comply with UK law.

Now I a number of noble Ladies and Lords have raised the question of the impact assessment, including the noble Baroness Brady tether. There will be an impact assessment on any revised proposals in answer to the noble Baroness Hamwee and again, I think hinted at by my noble friend Baroness Lister, there will be guidance provided for implementation and that will be provided before implementation. So it is open to scrutiny. The noble Baroness Hamwee spotted the important point, which I just want to reemphasize today, which again, the noble Lord Davis mentioned, regulation five is a secondary assimilated law formerly known as secondary retained EU law, and the powers to amend or remove it expire in June 2026.

Now we have to take some action on that. We could and we might, and things will develop about primary legislation, potentially. But we have to look at what we do with the expiration of that regulation in June 2026, and using the powers that we have now is the most efficient way to avoid retaining an outdated duty that does not align necessarily with future policy direction. We are committed to ensuring the asylum policy is fair and targeted, and my noble friend Baroness Lister said, why not use primary legislation? Regulation five is itself secondary EU required derived law providing a specific statutory route to revocation via EU law Act is what we're trying to do today, pending a review and moving to discretion.

Where there will be a published policy, there will be safeguards and it will, I hope, again to give confidence to the House, be in line with our article three EC obligations. I do take issue with the noble Lord in a friendly and cooperative way, that we're not going to leave the ECHR, but we will look at again how we apply article three and indeed article eight on these matters. And I just say, and again, I hope the the noble Lady Baroness Teather will take this at face value.

The goal of the Home Office is not to make people destitute, but it's to try to maintain fairness in the system. Removal of support does not automatically cause destitution. Decisions on whether an individual's are eligible, support for support or where already on support, or whether they should remain eligible. Support will be made in the interim on a case by case basis, pending any discussion around further policy statements downstream and those policy statements. Again, we are committed to our international obligations, revocation of the duty and its replacement with the power will provide us with more discretion.

But the government will not operate a policy that will breach article three of the EC. Now, the question of allowing illegal working I think is still an important issue. I don't want to see individuals working illegally in any circumstance and undermining legitimate businesses and legitimate people at work. It has consequences. It leads to exploitation. It undermines public confidence in how the asylum system is managed. And it is important that if we allow illegal working with no consequences, that will open up individuals, potentially asylum seekers, yes, but also others for risks of exploitation.

Now, it's it's a very important issue. My noble friend, the noble Lord Mann mentioned this issue, particularly an illegal working. He's made some interesting suggestions which are always worthy of consideration. But there is now a crackdown on illegal working. And I can say to my noble friend that 9000, approximately 9000 people have been arrested on the basis of illegal working in the past year, including some asylum seekers. It's an important issue that we take seriously, and it's one that undermines legitimate businesses.

So when we have this order in front of us today, it is important that colleagues and noble Lords recognise that illegal working damages the economy, damages businesses and leads to people being exploited. And therefore, I welcome the support from the opposition front and former Ministers on the opposition benches for those measures. Now, the development of the framework again, I say to the House is ongoing and in collaboration with other government departments, we're going to look at the operational changes, look at the impact of those operational changes and roll them out gradually with continued impact assessments being undertaken.

This will ensure the changes are implemented in a controlled and sustainable way, and there will be consultation. There will be potential engagement with relevant stakeholders and there will be opportunities both across government during the development of the policy for noble Lords. But indeed, stakeholders and other government departments to have a say on this matter. My noble friend Baroness Lister also mentioned the 56 day pilot. We will be publishing the result and the final evaluation of that pilot in spring.

Spring is is almost upon us. Spring. Spring has sprung, but spring does develop into April and May, and we will be producing that document in spring of this year that will be open to scrutiny. The 42 day move on period that we've settled on. We will look at that impact and keep it keep it under review. We'll continue to engage with and listen to the feedback from stakeholders, including local authorities. We will work with my noble friend who is on the front bench now from the Department of Local Government and the Homelessness strategy.

And as part of this, we're committed to ensuring councils do receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of asylum discontinuation of support notification. So these matters will be kept under review and I hope that will assist my my noble friend, as I've said, but I just want to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. For addressing those issues. But I just wonder, is it is it the I just wonder, is it is it the intention to put the 42 days into Statutory Instrument eventually? Statutory Instrument eventually? Because as I understand it, the current 28 days is. So if this is a current 28 days is. So if this is a new, new normal, it would make sense. But he can write to me if he can't. If he doesn't want to answer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can't. If he doesn't want to answer that. Now. If my noble friend Will will allow me. The intention is to have a 42 day period. We're publishing the evaluation very shortly, if she'll allow me. I would rather, you know, reflect with my colleague Minister, Minister Norris, who deals directly with these matters on the mechanism to achieve that. But I will certainly write to her on that point when I've consulted with my noble friend. It is important as well, just finally, to put on record the fact that the government has reduced.

Going to the point the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned the number of migrants in asylum hotels by 19% in the past year to the end of December 25th. Overall asylum support costs have fallen by 15% to the year March 25th, and the rules that we put in place today are designed to help us reduce those costs further by making sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system, but meeting our international obligations. And I think it does sit alongside existing work which has seen illegal working enforcement activity in 2025 reach.

Going back to the point of my noble friend Lord Mann, the highest level of illegal immigration and also illegal working enforcement activity in British history. Now those are important issues. In conclusion, my Lords, the proposals before us today mean we will tackle illegal working, but it also means we will not support those who have permission to work but choose not to. We will not support those who enter the country on a work or student visa, with permission to work before claiming asylum, and we're not going to support those who've been granted permission to work where they claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own.

We will not support those who are non-compliant. This includes anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose, and I think that is fair to the British taxpayer. The revocation of the duty does not result in immediate changes. As I've said to those who will receive asylum support, it is the start of a process. Development of this framework is ongoing and in collaboration with other government departments. I will be bringing obviously regular updates to the House on what the changes are. On behalf of my noble friend.

And finally, if I may just say the point from the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle with regard to allowing asylum seekers to work, I think that, again, is an issue which would undermine the principle of the work visa, where people come to the country to work. She shakes her head. It's an honest disagreement, but that would undermine those points. And the. Finally, the points that the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth mentioned in regard to our assessment of neighbouring countries asylum.

Policy issues, I will look at that, if I may. I don't have information to hand on that, but I will look at that, and I will give an agreement to write to the noble Lord to cover any points. When I've reflected again on what he said when I read Hansard tomorrow. And with that, my Lords, I beg to move the two motions in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that this motion be agreed, as many of our opinions say, content contrary, our opinions say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Lord Hanson of Flint move 2026 Lord Hanson of Flint move formally question is that the second motion be agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it local authorities changes to years of ordinary elections.

17:57

Orders and regulations: Debate on the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026 and the associated regret motion in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook