Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Hamwee

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 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”.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were introduced by the previous Government, so a take-note Motion seemed more appropriate than a regret Motion as there was no time to debate them before the election. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me to discuss them when he had hardly had time to breathe in his new role. My understanding is that the Government will look at them again as part of a wider review of detention matters, but I thought it important that we debate them now to ensure that noble Lords’ concerns are adequately addressed in the review.

Before I turn to the regulations, we would all find it helpful, I am sure, if the Minister could say more about the review when he comes to respond. In particular, what will it cover, what will be the timescale, will expert organisations be consulted and will both Houses be able to debate the outcome? This would also be helpful to the organisations that provided a joint briefing on the regulations—in particular, Medical Justice, to which I am grateful for its help. Here I should also declare my interest as a RAMP associate.

In effect, the regulations reduce the protection provided by statutory guidance to adults at risk in detention, which could increase the risk of the kinds of human rights violations uncovered in the Brook House inquiry. There are two main concerns. The first is the deletion of the key principle, introduced in 2016, that underlines the intention that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained in fewer instances and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary. Of course, this concerns the wider question of the role of detention, which I assume will inform the more general review.

The second concern is about the reinstatement of the Home Office’s power to seek a second opinion from a contracted doctor on detained individuals who have already received an independent medical assessment that documents the impact and risks to their health of their continued detention. The second-opinion policy was in place from June 2022 to January 2024, when it was deemed unlawful by the High Court following a judicial review brought by Medical Justice.

Three main criticisms have been made of the policy. First, it introduces an additional delay, which could result in an unnecessary prolongation of the period of detention. Secondly, it exposes an already vulnerable person to the risk of retraumatisation. This was emphasised in a witness statement to the High Court from a clinical adviser at Medical Justice. Citing the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ general concern about how detention might trigger reminders of an original trauma, she warned of the dangers to mental health of a reassessment requiring a detainee to relive their experiences yet again.

Thirdly, the policy could have a detrimental effect on the quality of decision-making. Indeed, the UN Istanbul protocol counsels against downgrading the findings from external clinical assessments. There are good reasons why a detained person might be more willing to open up to an independent medical assessor than to one contracted by the Home Office, who might not be trusted. How are Home Office caseworkers, who lack medical knowledge, supposed to decide between any differences that there may be between an external assessment and an internal one? Adopting the lowest common denominator, where both assessors agree, is no answer. If the Home Office has concerns about any particular clinician, should it not take them up with the appropriate regulatory body, as argued in the witness statement to the High Court?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the data provided by the Home Office

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

It therefore simply recommended close monitoring of its operation and the publication of the results. Can the Minister confirm that such monitoring is taking place and, if so, can he share any results at this stage?

Before turning to the Home Office’s justification for the new guidance, it might be helpful to put it in the context of the original official review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, conducted by Stephen Shaw, and the more recent official Brook House inquiry, chaired by Kate Eves. The Shaw review identified a systemic overreliance on detention and, in particular, that too many vulnerable people were being detained for too long and were not being protected adequately by existing safeguards. This led to the introduction in 2016 of the adults at risk statutory guidance, which aimed to improve protection for this group.

In addition to the statutory guidance, further safeguards are supposed to be provided by rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, but the Brook House inquiry concluded that these rules were not being properly applied, so that adults at risk continued—and evidence, including the recent report of the independent Gatwick removal centre monitoring board, and new research from Medical Justice, suggests continue—not to receive the protection promised after the Shaw review.

Extraordinarily, when questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, Ms Eves said that she found it difficult

“to decipher exactly which of the 31 recommendations to Government are being accepted or rejected”.

A year on from the report, she concluded in media interviews that only one recommendation had been categorically accepted.

The lack of clarity in the previous Government’s response means they did not even get to the starting point when it comes to the monitoring of accepted recommendations, as called for by the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s recent highly critical report. Ms Eves expressed her disappointment to the HAC

“that I do not have confidence that, actually, there has been a meaningful engagement with what was really found and what the recommendations really mean”.

I hope that the new Government will look at this again, including via their review of detention, and that they will now engage meaningfully with the inquiry’s recommendations. May I ask for an assurance that this will be the case?

The Brook House inquiry and numerous other reports, including one just last week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have detailed the injurious impact of detention, particularly on the physical and mental health of vulnerable groups. One aspect emphasised by many is the absence of any time limit. According to Ms Eves, it is a profound cause of distress, due to anxiety and uncertainty. I ask that the current review looks again at the previous Government’s rejection of her recommendation of a time limit, which echoed that of countless reviews and reports, including from the HAC when it was chaired by the current Home Secretary.

In her evidence to the HAC, Ms Eves made it clear that she considered the regulations that we are debating today constituted a move in the opposite direction from what she recommended, as they appear

“essentially to be moving towards weakening the protections for vulnerable detainee populations”.

The Home Office’s justification for the regulations, set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that the purpose is

“to reflect the current Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention”,

in response to the challenge of what it dubbed illegal migration, in contrast to the context and priorities of 2016, when the focus was on reducing the use of immigration detention.

Of course, the reference to the “current” Government was to the then Government and was made in the context of the Rwanda policy, which involved an expansion of detention. Happily, the Rwanda policy is no more and I believe that it is officially accepted that the seeking of asylum does not constitute illegal migration, as my noble friend in effect confirmed in Oral Questions last week.

However, regrettably, the Government have nevertheless announced that they will go ahead with the reopening of two detention centres, which has provoked widespread concern. Despite this, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention are not the same as the former Government’s and that they will prioritise the human rights of asylum seekers. I hope he will confirm that they will therefore withdraw these regulations in due course, as part of the wider review of detention policy. This would be consistent with the statement about detention made by a Home Office spokesperson last week in response to the IMB’s call for the end of the detention of families with children in the Gatwick detention unit. It said:

“We are fully committed to … providing a service which prioritises people’s safety and wellbeing”.


In conclusion, I hope this debate will encourage such an outcome. In the meantime, the SLSC encouraged us to press for further details on the Home Office’s plans for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on the changes, so I look forward to hearing what monitoring is currently being undertaken.

I finish by quoting from someone who has experienced detention: Jonah, who wrote a foreword for a recent Jesuit Refugee Service report detailing continued abuses after Brook House. He wrote:

“When I arrived in detention, the first thing I observed is that everybody … is treated like a prisoner. … I was in immigration detention for 7 months. It still affects me even today. Detention is like a war camp. They really want to break you, in the hope that you’ll leave and go back to a terrible situation. You are more or less treated like an animal … you’re just a number. In detention, nobody even knew my name … The horrendous things that the Brook House Inquiry brought to light continue to happen … Detention is a terrible place”.


We can all learn from those with lived experience of detention, so I hope that the current review will do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I warn the Minister that during the previous Session the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, gained a reputation as a terrier on these issues. Actually, a number of us were badged as terriers, and she was the leader of the pack. She was very energetic in her critiques, particularly and quite successfully on the detention of pregnant women.

It is depressing to have to have this debate. When the Brook House scandal surfaced, three of us, cross-party, met the relevant Home Office Minister. I asked why the Home Office had not terminated the contract with the provider and whether the contract gave the Home Office the right to terminate in the event of such egregious behaviour. The answer was that the same individuals would be rehired whoever the provider was. This was not a matter of TUPE; it was about who would apply. I continue to have anxiety about the terms of the contracts that the Home Office lets, but, of course, commercial confidentiality means that one cannot go further than that.

We have not got the running of detention right, if there is to be detention, especially for more than a minimum period, but that is not for today either. However, this compounds the importance of guidance. I have always thought that anyone seeking asylum or who is detained, is likely to be vulnerable—this is “and” not “or”. I had forgotten that the 2016 Act refers to people who are “particularly vulnerable”. The whole of this population is vulnerable, but not all of them are protected under the legislation and the guidance.