Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry it proved impossible to deal with all the amendments in a single group because that would have saved us time. I have to say that I do not recognise my Bill in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. We are not talking about illegal migration; we are talking about people who have been given refugee status. They are not illegal migrants. Please can we get that clear at the outset?

I will try to avoid repetition when I speak to my own amendments. At this point I voice my thanks to the assistance I received from the Refugee Council and from Heather Staff at RAMP, of which I am an associate, and to colleagues who have given up their time to support the Bill on this lovely afternoon.

I shall start with a couple of drafting points. First, I am bemused by the attempt to strike out Clause 3, which has nothing to do with the extension of the move-on period to 56 days, as suggested in the explanatory statement. The clause simply seeks to ensure that the notice to quit asylum accommodation is aligned with the move-on period, be it 28 days or 56 days. At present the requirement is simply a minimum of seven days, and we saw the chaos and destitution that that can cause when refugees were evicted with only seven days’ notice in late 2023.

Secondly, I am not sure that the amendment to Clause 4 does what it purports to, which is to prevent the Bill’s measures coming into force. Erskine May says that the date of Royal Assent is the date of commencement when no other date is enacted. Likewise, Section 4 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says that an Act commences

“where no provision is made for its coming into force, at the beginning of the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent”.

I do not think that is what the noble Lords opposite intended, whereas, as I will point out in the next grouping, my amendment puts the commencement date in the hands of the Secretary of State and makes it dependent on the outcome of the pilot. I am puzzled as to why noble Lords would not want to know the outcome of the pilot before trying to stop the Bill. Surely, they believe in evidence-based policy-making—though I must admit, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I suspect not.

Before I turn to the evidence that I have gathered, I shall deal with the question of costs raised by the noble Lord. As I said at Second Reading, research conducted at the LSE indicates that a longer move-on period could in fact produce a modest saving. The enthusiastic response of local authorities and voluntary organisations, which argue that the 56-day pilot is allowing more preventative work, supports that, because in the long run prevention is more cost-effective than firefighting. But we must ask: who should bear the burden of any cost—the Government, local authorities, the voluntary sector or individual refugees in exceptionally vulnerable circumstances?

It is worth noting that the Local Government Association—of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is a former chair—conducted a survey of its members prior to the announcement of the pilot. The extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as the single most effective change that could be made to the move on process. Did the noble Lord seek the views of the LGA before tabling these amendments?

I do not propose to repeat the arguments I made at Second Reading, which were based on the years of evidence we have of the immense problems caused by the 28-day move-on period. At that point, I could only surmise what doubling it to 56 days might achieve. Now, in the absence of an official interim report on the pilot—and I will talk more about that in the second group—I would like to share with colleagues some findings from a Refugee Council survey and my own unscientific gathering of information from a local authority and from refugee and homelessness organisations which supported the original Bill. I am indebted to all of them for the trouble they took in providing this information, and I am only sorry I cannot do justice to the wealth of responses they sent us. I apologise that this will make my speech on the long side, especially given the time, but the upside for colleagues is that my speech on the second group will be much shorter.

Overall, there has been a uniformly positive response, which is not to say that there have not been teething problems—partly due, according to local authorities in my home region of the East Midlands, to the short implementation time and partly due to delays in receiving necessary documentation. There have, inevitably, been variations in how well local authorities have responded to the longer move on period. Nevertheless, in the words of NACCOM—the UK-wide No Accommodation Network which works to prevent destitution among refugees, among others—the extension

“has proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”.

One of the organisations in the north-east noted:

“I think the main lesson is the 56-day period is a much more humane and smoother transition process for everyone”.


Similarly, London Councils has called it “a vital support”, and it suggests that the impact is likely to increase because the 56-day period came into effect later in some boroughs. Feedback from the East Midlands is that it has made a huge difference, and Crisis has also referred to “the overwhelming response” from its services that it should be retained.

The pilot has helped to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly among single people. Although some refugees have still ended up rough sleeping, it has tended to be for shorter periods, and Crisis staff felt that the 56 days at least “make it possible” to find accommodation. The Glass Door Homeless Charity recorded a significant drop in the number of winter night shelter guests who have Home Office accommodation departure as the reason for their homelessness.

Moreover, the pilot has enabled local authorities and other services to take a more preventative approach to the housing needs of refugees, rather than having to pick up the pieces once they are homeless—this responds directly to some of the points made by the noble Lord. What NACCOM called a

“realistic timeframe to plan and take meaningful steps towards independence”

has been important for the mental health and well-being of refugees because they are less stressed.

London Councils reports feedback from SMPs outside London showing that it has enabled more time for people with mental health difficulties or disabilities to get letters of confirmation from GPs to prove a housing need. It has also helped refugees be more of aware of their housing options and given them more time to plan, thereby enhancing their autonomy, and it enhances their chances of long-term integration.

In turn, this has reduced the pressure on services. According to NACCOM, it has increased service capacity and reduced burnout among staff and volunteers. Local authority staff are better able to do their jobs and respond to the needs of refugees. However, it is already noted that there is still wide variation in how the policy is implemented, particularly regarding what documentation triggers the homelessness application.

One point made by a number of respondents was that it has meant that more people are now in receipt of universal credit in their bank accounts when they are evicted, which helps the individual, the local authority and homelessness services. London Councils has spelled out the positive implications of this. The need for emergency financial support is reduced. Individuals are less vulnerable and stressed when they are evicted, and they are in a better place to look for work upon moving into independent accommodation. To quote Islington Council:

“previously the mismatch between move on and universal credit timescales was almost insurmountable. It’s really important that we keep this move-on period so that we don’t go back to a situation of bureaucratically enforced destitution”.

Nevertheless, there are some problems, which I do not have time to go into, other than to note that some of them stem from e-visas, which my Amendment 1, together with Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, would help to address. Unsurprisingly, a longer move-on period is not a silver bullet that can address more systemic problems, such as lack of affordability, aggravated by not being allowed to do paid work.

I hope this has given colleagues a flavour of the informal responses to the pilot in the absence of any formal evaluation so far. I hope these responses will be helpful to the Home Office. It is fair to say that every organisation that responded to me called for the pilot to be made permanent. I believe they would be horrified if they read the proposals in this group. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not press them and will be willing to wait for the outcome of the formal pilot before reaching any conclusion as to the future of the 56 days move-on period.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I spoke at the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am happy to support the noble Baroness again today.

The Second Reading was not opposed. One Member of the Conservative Benches—the only member of the Conservative Benches who spoke—raised a lot of questions. I think he opposed the principle of the Bill—though without saying so in terms, but by raising points about cost. Today, we have what are, frankly, wrecking amendments, and the noble Lord who spoke first to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill said so. He is urging noble Lords to oppose the Bill. I hope I have quoted him correctly; I did write it down.

The objections in December were about cost and things being pretty much okay. We know that things are not okay. The noble Baroness has made that very clear, both then and now. I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, but her reminder that we are talking about people who have been accepted as refugees is absolutely to the point.

I am baffled that, administratively, so many problems seem to have been thrown up by the arrangements that are in place, subject to the pilot, because to the world, the Home Office is the Home Office, as an entity. Frankly, it should be able to co-ordinate with itself, local authorities, the DWP and so on. There are many reasons why one would want to see the whole process working smoothly. It is hard to imagine that moving to 56 days would not lead to savings, as the noble Baroness said, including planning for future accommodation rather than homelessness, concurrence of universal credit and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and everything he said. Unlike him, I had not come today with the intention of taking part in the proceedings on the Bill, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for that. Actually, after three Tory Bills in three years, I vowed that I would never again take part in an asylum and immigration Bill, but one somehow gets into things, and I will be taking part in the debates on the border security Bill.

I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I remember on one occasion sitting until 4.15 in the morning—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

It was 4.16 in the morning.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

It was 4.16 —I cannot remember which Bill it was; it is all a bit of a haze. Was it the Rwanda one? Being turfed out and then trying to find your way home at 4.16 in the morning, particularly as a woman, is not great. But that was that Administration.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has confirmed in her opening words that we are talking about people who have had a positive asylum decision; they have refugee status or a decision on humanitarian protection. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who I think used the term “realistic”. Other noble colleagues have talked about it being pragmatic and practical. I think that is the point.

I apologise that I did not take part in Second Reading, but I understand that there is this trial going on, and I can imagine that, far from costing money, it could end up saving money, because it is an investment in the slightly longer term for people to get on their own two feet and find a job and other accommodation. They are expected to do that in 28 days and if they do not, someone has to pick up the pieces if they are destitute, under various other provisions. It really cannot be a good thing for them or for wider society if, understandably, after 28 days they have not managed to sort everything out. So I completely understand why local authorities and other bodies would be keen supporters of the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill. I very much hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are also keen supporters of the Bill, as well as, it has to be said, of the right of asylum seekers to work, as here we are talking about those who have been granted asylum.

This is all in the interests of having an asylum system that is much more efficient and costs as little as possible, which was not, I am afraid, the purpose of the last Government, who created chaos and a legacy of administrative confusion in the asylum system. This Bill goes a small way on a limited issue to try to help make things more realistic and practical, and to give people a start in integrating into and contributing to our society, which is surely what we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 3. Amendment 4 is simply consequential.

To go back slightly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for that clarification. I do not know whether he has looked at the legislation that would be amended by this Bill. That would probably make it clear who we are talking about, but I will of course talk to the person who drafted it—who I have to admit is not me—to make sure that there is no possible loophole there. I am pretty confident that there is not. It is rather unfortunate that the Front Bench spoke as if it were purely about illegal migrants. I do not think that they would be covered. Anyway, we will look at it and I thank the noble Lord for that helpful clarification.

Colleagues might be surprised that I am trying to amend my own Bill. I can assure them that it is not a cunning plot to keep them, including my noble friend the Minister and now my noble friend the Chief Whip, here on a sunny Friday afternoon, but there is a reason for it. As we have already heard, just a few days before Second Reading, the Home Office made the very welcome announcement of a pilot extension to 56 days, which is due to conclude in June. It seems sensible that the Bill should take account of that, hence Amendment 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to determine when Clause 1, which extends the move-on period, should come into force. This would follow the completion of any trial period, such as the one that is currently under way. Thus, the Bill puts the introduction of its main clause in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that my noble friend the Minister might look kindly on that.

Amending the Bill in this way would also provide an opportunity to take account of the rollout of biometric residence documents, or eVisas, which can be used as proof of immigration status and identity. Thus, Amendment 1, in conjunction with Clauses 2 and 3, would ensure that a refugee received this document, along with other documents required to access services, before the move-on period started. At present, different documents are sent at different times from different parts of the Home Office, some once a move-on period has already started. The aim is to simplify the process by ensuring that refugees have all the necessary documentation before the move-on period starts ticking. If they have not been given refugee status, they will not get these documents, so the Bill will not apply to the people the noble Lords opposite are afraid it might apply to.

At Second Reading, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, raised an objection to Clauses 2 and 3, which, as I have said, would ensure that refugees receive all the necessary documents and information prior to the start of the move-on period. He said:

“The only way to implement that approach would be to delay the service of the asylum decision; we do not really want to do that”.—[Official Report, 13/12/24; col. 2012.]


But I am advised by the Refugee Council that this would make little difference, given the period that asylum seekers have had to wait already, and better that the delay occurs before the move-on period than during it, given that failure to receive all the correct documentation at the outset could, in effect, eat into the move-on period. Of course, the answer is to speed up sending all the documentation.

As it stands, the Refugee Council survey I mentioned earlier and the experience of HIAS+JCORE, the UK Jewish voice on refugees and racial justice, indicate that, in London at least, delays in receiving documentation mean that the 56-day move-on period is, in practice, quite a bit shorter in some cases.

My noble friend the Minister has answered some of the questions I was going to ask about the pilot, which is great. He said it would be ending “shortly”, but that is one of those Civil Service words that means different things to different people, so it would be helpful if he could be a bit more precise. Can he also tell us what allowance is being made in the pilot for the fact that e-visas are being rolled out during this period, which could complicate things, and that a high number of asylum decisions are being taken?

I finish by citing the response of two organisations from the housing and refugee sectors. First, the Chartered Institute of Housing warmly welcomes the Bill—after it has been amended by these amendments, as I hope it will be eventually—and urges the Home Secretary either to facilitate its passage or to otherwise legislate to make the 56-day move-on period permanent. Clearly, the facilitation of the Bill’s passage would be much simpler than new legislation. As I have said, the implementation of the move-on period would be in the hands of the Home Secretary following the pilot. Without legislation, it would be too easy for a future Government to revert to 28 days without parliamentary scrutiny, and the first group of amendments we debated testifies to that. Given the enthusiastic response of all sectors to the pilot, including of course local authorities, I really think there is no going back.

Secondly, I give the last word to NACCOM, which says that

“the extension has already proved cost-effective, humane and legally coherent. Making it permanent is a pragmatic step towards stability for those granted safety in the UK”.

I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we were told, I think, that the pilot will be until June, which gives a few more days. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that, in parliamentary terms, “shortly” is a rather expansive term.

I will ask the Minister about the evaluation. He will obviously not be able to tell me about any of its outcomes, but I hope that it will be a relatively speedy process. In preparing for today, I saw a request somewhere that organisations working in the sector to support refugees should be included in any consultation—and there should be consultation on what the evaluation shows, how the proposal can be taken forward and whether any tweaks should be made. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today—he will not be in a position to do so—but I add my voice to that request, which seems to be, to quote, “entirely humane and practical”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has tabled to her Bill.

I will address my remarks primarily to her Amendment 1. While the intention behind the amendment may be to ensure a smoother transition for asylum seekers, it introduces significant practical, legal and policy problems that risk undermining the efficient functioning of the asylum system. First, from my understanding of it, the amendment, in effect, makes the issuance of a biometric residence document a precondition for starting the clock on the post-decision support period: that is, it ties the end of taxpayer-funded asylum support not to the legal decision on status, as is currently the case, but to the administrative completion of documentation.

The Government’s decision on an asylum claim is, rightly, a legal milestone. At that point, the person is no longer an asylum seeker; they have either secured leave to remain or not. The prescribed support period is meant to bridge the gap between that decision and the individual transitioning either into mainstream services or departing the country.

This amendment proposes an administrative burden and legal uncertainty and would require the Home Office to verify the delivery of a specific document to each individual before initiating the countdown to the end of support. This tracking and compliance exercise would be bureaucratic, costly and ripe for legal challenge.

Let us not forget the wider context: it is about taxpayer-funded support being an already generous and necessary safety net during the asylum process. Once the claim is accepted or otherwise determined, the individual is expected to move into mainstream provision or make arrangements for return. Delinking that transition from the legal decision itself and instead tying it to the issuance of paperwork is not only unworkable but unfair to the taxpayer and is an unwise policy.