Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Amendment 26 to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which permits a registered social housing provider to issue a closure notice in respect of premises they own or manage, under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have stated, a closure notice under Section 76 of that Act is a notice which prohibits a person from accessing specific premises. Currently, such a notice can be issued only by the police or the local authority, but Schedule 2 permits an RSH to also issue such notices.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the RSH provider is able to issue a closure notice for an individual flat in the premises it is responsible for. Given that paragraph (2)(b) of Schedule 2 does not specify that fact, I look forward to the Minister’s answer and hope he might clarify that point.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for this short but focused debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing his amendment. As he has explained, it seeks to allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage.

The closure power is a fast, flexible power that can be used to protect victims and communities by quickly closing premises that are causing nuisance or disorder. Clause 5 and Schedule 2 extend the closure power to registered social housing providers. Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for closure orders, to enable them to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is clear that registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing. There is statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers are expected to meet the same legal tests as set out in the 2014 Act that the noble Lord mentioned. This will ensure that all relevant agencies have the right tools to tackle anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively. In turn, this will save police and local authorities time, as housing providers will be able to make applications directly, rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised his concerns about risks of abuse. For instance, he was concerned that extending the power to housing providers might risk it being misused to evict tenants, such as those in rent arrears. There are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse. Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult with relevant partners prior to the issuing of a closure notice. This requirement is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that the process will go through the courts.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of the premises. This could therefore already include an individual flat within a housing block. Indeed, that would be the expectation: that this targets individual households, rather than whole blocks of flats. We are confident that the current legislative framework and the Bill will cover that and make that clear. On the basis of that clarification—of course, I will reflect on Hansard and the points he specifically raised about the 2014 Act, and I will write to him in more detail if I need to—I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Online Safety Act 2023: Online Hate and Racism

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I agree completely with the noble Lord’s point. It is impossible without proper training, guidance and an understanding of diversity in an organisation and as experienced by a whole organisation, for effective and correct enforcement of harassment and discriminatory abuse offences. I will have to write to him with detail of the regimes undertaken by Ofcom, but I can say, for instance, on the police, that there is an authorised professional practice guide produced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in conjunction with the College of Policing. It sets out the latest expectations around policing protests. The protest operational advice document is regularly updated and helps those people on the front line enforcing our expectations of protecting communities—what is race hate and what is not race hate?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, phone snatching increased last year by 150% and shoplifting to the year ending March 2025 increased by 19%. Do the Government really believe that, important though it is, police pursuit of online hate crime is a proper use of resources?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

In short, yes, because an offence against a person online can be as serious as an offence against someone in person. That is why we are introducing in the Crime and Policing Bill—which will not only tackle incidents of retail crime, for instance, which is obviously a crime against the person—new measures around policing public order, which, again, is directly in person but has an impact on communities and the way that they feel that they are safe in this country. But if we leave online hate unpoliced and unenforced, it will only grow. We have been shown this, and this is why we are absolutely clear with Ofcom that we will not hesitate to build on the Act if it is not doing enough to keep UK users, particularly our children, safe online.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.

Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.

Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.

The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that the Government have not listened to the arguments advanced here. Clause 48 will complicate this area of law by reintroducing the confusion that was cleared up by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. No noble Lord raised any issue with that change at the time, so there is no reason to be reintroducing the rebuttable presumption. It is surely farcical that convictions for sexual offences could be argued to be not particularly serious crimes, when no other offence could be so argued. This seems like a case of intransigence on the part of the Government and a denial of the clear error they have made. As disappointing as this is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this amendment. The intention behind it is obviously very welcome. We need to make sure that those going through this process can understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is of course a duty of the Government to make sure that this can happen. To that end, I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the Committee that the Government are already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services, and how they plan to manage any increase in demand.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, to an extent, the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, for raising this matter of both practical importance and human dignity: the provision of translation and interpretation services within the Home Office.

The Government’s immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society. We believe, as I am sure not only the noble Baroness but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom.

However, obviously, there are circumstances where the needs of both protection and expediency trump this proposal. As we have already heard from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, there are individuals for whom translation and interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to begin the long journey of recovery and justice—for example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked to the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the high standards of delivery of these services. It is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency but of moral and legal obligation.

Paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules already makes it clear that the Home Secretary must provide, at public expense, an interpreter wherever necessary to allow an applicant to submit their case. This includes the substantive asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person’s life.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in the other place, an MP elected on the Reform ticket asked a number of His Majesty’s Government’s departments not to provide such translation services. I, for one, believe that the Government regret that approach. Both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and our society, and we will not undermine these principles. As I said, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services, not simply so that asylum seekers can access the system adequately but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, so that the system makes the right call the first time round.

Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by Immigration Enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights both affirm that a defendant must understand the charges against them and be able to mount a proper defence. This is not optional extra, and we do not treat it as such. As I said, the current Immigration Rules make clear the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services within the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help’s asylum services, which are available 24 hours a day, offer free, independent advice, guidance and information, including full interpretation services.

We have had some discussion about funding, and noble Lords will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this Government in public service delivery. We must therefore ensure that language services are cost effective, and the Home Office is committed to assessing language service needs and spend to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility and a compassionate, practical approach to translation. We understand well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about penny-pinching undermining the integrity of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about the cost gap in the sense, I suppose, of a counterfactual situation. I am not sure that any assessment has been made of that additional cost gap, but I will go back and ask officials whether that has been the case.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, our amendments in this group speak to the important principle that, if we are going to do something serious about this issue, we need to make sure those who will be undertaking that vital work are given all the tools they need.

Amendment 72 removes the restriction under Clause 20 that a person may be searched only once. That limitation is both arbitrary and impractical. In the real world, people arriving in the UK illegally may conceal items, documents, electronic devices and false identification, only to reveal or discard them later. Preventing further searches, even when officers have fresh grounds for suspicion, is not a safeguard; it is a gift to traffickers and smugglers. This amendment would correct that mistake and restore operational flexibility where there is lawful cause. Indeed, we need look no further than the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for precedent and recognition of this fact; it permits multiple searches of a person if there are reasonable grounds. This is a commonplace power and we must ensure that it is incorporated in the Bill if we are to effectively tackle this sort of criminality.

Furthermore, Amendment 73 removes the requirement that a person must have been on the premises before a search can take place. Criminal organisations are constantly adapting their tactics, using safe houses, transferring items between locations and avoiding detection by not being physically present. By tying an officer’s hands to whether a suspect was on the premises at a precise moment, we risk losing vital evidence and allowing dangerous networks to evade accountability. This change would ensure that we are not outwitted by legal technicalities.

Furthermore, Amendment 74 removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that require prior authorisation from an inspector and notification to a superintendent for a constable to conduct a search. Amendment 78 applies this principle to the seizure of relevant articles. Of course, oversight is vital, but we must not confuse oversight with obstruction. Our officers already operate within a strict legal framework and we are of the view that adding yet another layer of sign-off, particularly in time-sensitive operations, risks slowing down action, delaying disruption and missing crucial opportunities to intercept criminal activity. Officers need to be able to respond quickly, flexibly and effectively if we are to stand up to those who violate our borders. Indeed, constables are not subject to this requirement to seek permission to conduct a search under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and in Section 18 of that Act, police offers are only required to inform an officer of at least the rank of inspector as soon as is practicable after they have conducted a search, not before. This provision to seek permission is therefore unnecessary and not in line with the relevant existing legislation.

These amendments are about restoring operational realism and strengthening our capacity to protect. If we are serious about securing our borders, cracking down on illegal entry and dismantling the networks that exploit vulnerable people for profit, we must give our officers the clear, workable powers they require. These amendments are sensible proposals that would cut back bureaucracy and allow us to get on and deal with this problem more effectively.

Finally, Amendment 91 would remove the requirement that a constable must obtain authorisation from an inspector and that the inspector must notify a super- intendent before accessing, copying or using information from a relevant article seized under Clause 23. We need to be clear on this. Clause 23 deals with information that may relate to the commission of serious immigration offences. In such cases, time is not a luxury. It is often the difference between success and failure—between a dismantled network and a missed opportunity. Indeed, this issue runs through all the amendments that I have spoken to in this group.

The current drafting imposes a two-tier authorisation system before any such information can even begin to be examined. The requirement to obtain inspector-level authorisation for each individual access, and then to escalate that to a superintendent, adds a bureaucratic burden that could hinder fast-moving investigations, especially when such information could reveal links to other suspects, routes and wider criminal infrastructure. Our amendment would ensure that our officers have the practical powers they need in a way that means they can be exercised with urgency and purpose. The constable will still be required to act lawfully, proportionately and within the scope of the clause, but removing these layers of procedural delay would ensure that our enforcement efforts are not undermined by red tape.

We cannot, on the one hand, claim to be taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and organised criminality and, on the other, design a framework that ties the hands of those trying to enforce the law. Amendment 91 works alongside our other amendments in this group to correct that imbalance. It would strengthen our operational capability while retaining the legal and ethical standards we rightly demand. I urge the Committee to support these amendments, and I beg to move.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. As we have heard, Amendment 72 proposes to remove the requirement for an authorised officer to ensure that a person has not previously been searched using these powers. I respectfully but robustly oppose this proposed change. These are intrusive powers that allow for the physical searching of individuals who are not under arrest and could be victims or witnesses. To apply such powers multiple times to the same person without any procedural check not only is disproportionate but risks undermining public confidence in the fairness and proportionality of our system. We must remember that this safeguard was introduced for good reason. It was informed by lessons learned from previous misuse that led to legal challenge. Its inclusion has helped to address legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse of power.

Amendment 73 proposes removing the requirement that the relevant person must have been on the premises when, or immediately before, they were encountered by an authorised officer. We respectfully oppose this change. This safeguard is essential. It ensures that there is a clear and direct link between the individual suspected of possessing a relevant article and the premises being searched. Without it, the power becomes too broad, allowing searches of premises even when there is no reasonable basis to believe the person was ever present. The presence of the individual is often the only factual basis upon which an officer can form reasonable grounds to suspect that a device or article is located there. Removing this requirement risks turning suspicion into speculation.

Amendments 74, 78 and 91 propose removing the requirement for police constables and National Crime Agency officers to obtain authorisation from an inspector or equivalent grade before exercising powers under Clauses 20, 21 and 23. Furthermore, the amendments would remove the requirement that an inspector notifies a superintendent or equivalent grade as soon as reasonably practicable. We strongly oppose these proposed changes. These are significant intrusive powers, and the current authorisation process is not an administrative burden. Rather, it is a vital safeguard to ensure the powers are applied with proportionality, due process and respect to the legal system. It ensures that decisions to use the powers where we are obtaining personal data and privacy are subject to senior oversight and scrutiny, helping to prevent misuse and maintaining public confidence and trust in those who use the powers and in the Government.

Unlike immigration officers, who may use these powers more routinely, police and NCA officers may not exercise them as frequently. That makes the case for retaining oversight stronger, not weaker. Removing this safeguard risks inconsistent application of the powers and undermines the legal and ethical standards we have worked very hard to uphold. Again, we want the system that we are introducing to command confidence across all of society. That means that we have to balance powers given to the authorities with safeguards and proportionality. We must ensure that these powers are used lawfully, proportionately and effectively. Retaining the requirement for senior authorisation is an essential part of achieving that balance.

For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, at the heart of this group of amendments lies the proposition that, if we are to confront the scale and complexity of illegal entry into this country, and indeed the criminal networks that are facilitating it, we must empower those on the front line to act swiftly, decisively and within a framework that reflects operational reality, not burdensome bureaucracy.

We on these Benches have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid that I have heard no compelling justification for why officers should be constrained to a single search, even in circumstances where new evidence arises, nor have we been given assurance that the narrow drafting of the premises clause will not impede investigations where criminal activity is thought to be located. I say to the Minister that those who orchestrate illegal crossings are not bound by procedure or protocol. Current legislation with regard to searches does not require such restrictions, so why should it apply here?

Under the current drafting of Clauses 20 to 23, the Bill proposes the imposition of a procedural bottleneck on our officers, who are working under pressure, often with incomplete information and in fast-moving, high-risk environments. We expect these officers to deliver results. Indeed, the Minister and his Government have staked a huge amount of political capital on these officers delivering results. Therefore, we need to make sure that we take decisions in this place so that those officers are equipped and empowered to get the job done.

These amendments would not lower standards; they would reduce delay and would not undermine safeguards. They would ensure that the law serves those it is meant to protect, not those who seek to exploit its gaps. If we are truly committed to securing our borders, upholding the rule of law and dismantling the infrastructure of exploitation that underpins these crossings, we must match the rhetoric with reality. These amendments certainly speak to our ambition, which is to give the officers the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 84 and 90, tabled by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead. These amendments raise a serious and important concern that we believe merits the attention of the Committee. It seeks to ensure that, where personal belongings are retained by the authorities under Clause 23, particularly in the case of potential victims of modern slavery, those items and the information they contain are preserved in a manner that allows them to be relied on as part of a national referral mechanism determination.

For many victims of trafficking, the evidence contained on a mobile phone or similar device may be the only proof they possess of their exploitation, whether that be messages, photographs or location data. To risk the loss, corruption or mishandling of that data would not only undermine the pursuit of justice but could place the individual concerned at even greater risk. We therefore support the principle behind this amendment. These protections are vital.

That said, we also recognise that many of these safeguards may already be provided for under the existing statutory framework, particularly under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which governs how evidence is secured and handled. But I accept what my noble friend said earlier about retention by police in some cases. If the Minister can offer the Committee reassurance that those protections already apply in the context of Clause 23 and that the rights of potential victims are adequately safeguarded in practice, that will be most welcome. This amendment raises a proper, necessary point of clarification and we hope the Government will respond accordingly.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, in addressing Amendments 84 and 90 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, I first take the opportunity to pay tribute to her work in this area, particularly as chair of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and indeed I acknowledge and pay tribute to her continued dedication to protecting vulnerable individuals. However, having said that—there is always a “however”—we feel that the amendments that she has tabled are not entirely necessary.

The amendments seek to introduce a statutory requirement to protect seized or surrendered items so they may later be used as evidence in court or in the national referral mechanism. Although obviously we agree with the intention behind them, we believe that they are unnecessary. The policy objective underpinning this measure is to ensure that the United Kingdom has the necessary powers to search for, seize, retain and use information from electronic devices belonging to irregular entrants or arrivals in relation to facilitation offences. These powers are vital to disrupting the operations of organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable individuals. It is essential that the focus of these powers is not changed and that authorised officers are fully equipped to use them effectively.

First, the current legislative framework already provides robust safeguards for the handling of personal property—notwithstanding the exchange with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, which I am afraid I was not in the Chamber for, on the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The Bill ensures that any electronic devices seized are treated appropriately and that any data they contain is preserved and processed in accordance with data protection laws, evidentiary standards and human rights obligations.

Safeguards are particularly important in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where, as we have heard, victims may be in possession of devices that contain sensitive personal information, indeed evidence of exploitation, or communications with support services. The Bill ensures that such material is handled with care and integrity, protecting both the individual’s privacy and the integrity of any ongoing investigation.

We recognise the importance of timely access to personal devices, particularly for victims of modern slavery, who may rely on them for communication, evidence or support. If we are able to successfully download relevant data from a device, we will return the phone to the individual at the earliest opportunity. If the device is still required for the purposes of investigation, we will retain it for only as long as is reasonably necessary. If the device must be retained, we can provide the victim with any downloaded material they may need to support a national referral mechanism application or to access support services.

As I said, the Bill makes it clear that devices and other personal property will be retained only for as long as necessary. Once they are no longer required for the purpose for which they are seized. they must be returned to the individual as soon as is practicable. This approach, we feel, strikes the right balance between empowering law enforcement to act decisively against organised immigration crime and trafficking networks, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals, particularly those who may be victims of modern slavery. Given that, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says, but I am not quite sure whether the Bill is therefore clear enough in what it states. I will continue, and perhaps the noble Baroness will bear with me.

When British citizens are suffering from a stagnated economy, sky-high taxes, spiralling unemployment and failing public services, to ask them to pay more for those who have had their asylum claims rejected is unacceptable. Recent analysis has shown that the entire annual tax bills of 582,000 people—equal to the population of Manchester—go on housing migrants. In our submission, the tax bills of British citizens should go on supporting the services that British citizens use. We should not be diverting such a volume of taxpayer resources to housing those who do not contribute to the system themselves. I certainly would not want to see any additional cost to local authorities.

This comes on top of the £54.2 million that last year went to legal teams seeking to thwart deportations or argue that asylum seekers should remain. The asylum seekers we are talking about already benefit from millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. As I said earlier, the crisis is worsening and the costs are spiralling—and this is all before the proposals put forth by the noble Baroness are considered. Extending the period of support from 28 to 56 days would have an immediate effect on the current cost that we are footing.

We must also take into account the incentive effect that this would have on those seeking to come to the UK. The numbers are already up 30% on last year and if people-smuggling gangs were able to tell their clients that the period for which they could subsist at the expense of the UK taxpayer had doubled, this would surely make the surge of people coming here illegally and dangerously even more extreme. It is absolutely vital that we do not create further incentives for people to make illegal and dangerous crossings into the country.

This is the compassionate position to take. Small boat crossings have spiralled in the last year and, very sadly, so have the numbers of those who have died trying to cross the channel illegally. Being in favour of changes that sustain and risk augmenting such scenarios is to support a system that is dangerous, exploitive and deeply unfair on those who do use safe and legal routes.

We need to deter people from making this perilous journey, not encourage them with the promise of extended financial support at the taxpayer’s expense—which would be the direct consequence of this. Moreover, this extended support is not cost neutral; it comes at a time when the pressures on our public services, local authorities and housing system are already acute. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund an extra month of housing and financial assistance for individuals who have no legal right to remain in this country. Every additional day of support after a failed claim represents not just a cost but a delay in the fair and orderly functioning of our immigration system.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and, at two points in particular, a confusing debate from my perspective. Before I go into some of the detail of my noble friend Lady Lister’s Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill, I want to respond to the intention to oppose Clause 1 and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench opposite. It was—if I would not say reckless—an irresponsible approach to a debate that needs more light and far less heat regarding how we, as responsible politicians, talk about immigration and asylum seeking.

To my mind, it is very clear. We are talking about what happens when, through a process that we are doing our damnedest as a Government to speed up, an individual’s asylum claim is granted and how they are then moved on and integrated into the community, as we all wish to be. This is not about deterring small boats per se; it is not about smashing the boats and the fact that too many migrants are taking away resources and undercutting British workers, or any of the rhetoric that we might have heard from the Benches opposite.

Let me clear: the Government are committed to reforming the asylum and immigration system so that we deter dangerous crossings and provide safe and legal routes where applicable and that, when people make an asylum claim, that claim is adjudicated and determined as quickly as possible. If that claim is found to be wanting and is rejected, that person should be deported. If it is not, they should be moved on—a phrase that I am not keen on—and integrated into the community. This is what the Bill is about. I am sorry that the Benches opposite, particularly the Opposition Front Bench, did not recognise that and address their remarks accordingly.

I want to reiterate the comments made by the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, at Second Reading, though noble Lords will be glad that I will not speak at as much length. The Government fully recognise the need for a smooth transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those who are recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain. I reiterate what has previously been acknowledged. We have huge pressures in the asylum system. The Government are working to ensure that individuals have the support that they need following an asylum decision.

There has, understandably, been some focus today on the 56-day pilot scheme that is in place, which I will spend a little time talking to. In December, the Home Office operationalised—again, a word that I am not keen on—a pilot to extend the move-on period so that individuals have 56 days to make move-on arrangements from the point at which they are notified of their leave to remain. The pilot is due to conclude shortly. The Government have put this pilot in place to support local authorities during a period where we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made because we are speeding up the system, as well as it coinciding with the recent transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees. I suspect that we will go on to that subject in the next group of amendments.

The Government firmly believe that this is a sensible and pragmatic approach to take while we bring the system back into balance. It is important that we take our time to evaluate the impact of these interim measures because, although there may be clear benefits to the proposal, careful analysis needs to be done to consider the full impacts, including those on the taxpayer, before any permanent changes are made. A wide range of stakeholders have been invited to take part in the evaluation, including local authorities—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, will be pleased to hear that—voluntary and community sector organisations and individuals with lived experience. The final evaluations are due later this year and a report will be published, subject to peer review and ministerial clearance.

To answer the first of the questions posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, our intention is that the final evaluation findings will be available to Parliament by the end of the year. To answer her second question, the target outcomes are being explored. They might touch on, and raise responses related to, stability and child poverty, the improved service user experience as part of the move-on journey and how successful the improved early integration outcomes for newly recognised refugees have been in terms of access to universal credit, employment, housing, et cetera.

On that note, I mention briefly the move-on support, including the introduction of move-on liaison officers, which is being evaluated alongside the pilot. It is worth saying that support is available to all individuals through Migrant Help. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying for universal credit, as well as signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing. We have also improved our communications, including making our letters to individuals clearer and providing information earlier in the process.

As I said, we have recruited 72 asylum move-on liaison officers, who offer face-to-face support to individuals newly granted refugee status so that they understand the steps they need to take once their asylum decision is issued. This assistance includes, as I mentioned, removing e-visa barriers and supporting with universal credit, housing applications and refugee integration loans. These officers work alongside Migrant Help and local authorities to identify and resolve issues. They are spread across the country in eight regions, covering more than 40 local authority areas, and are deployed where there is the most pressure and need in the system.

I will say more about the e-visa system in our debate on the next group of amendments, as I said. For the sake of brevity, I will conclude my remarks there, but I hope that our debate on the next group of amendments can be conducted on the basis of what the Bill and the amendments actually talk to, rather than what we might like them to talk to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate on this group of amendments. I will try to be brief, given the time.

My noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment effectively requires that the grace period not begin until an individual has received their e-visa. A newly granted refugee has digital status at the point when a positive decision is made. Therefore, they are able to commence the move-on process and access some key services prior to their e-visa account being created. For example, some government departments have systems and services that allow them to access information about the person directly, avoiding the need for the person to prove disuse of their e-visa. We have revised our communications to individuals prior to decision and within the grant letter to make this clear.

However, we recognise the importance of individuals having access to their e-visa before their asylum support is discontinued. That is why we currently have a safeguard in our process whereby support will not be discontinued for at least 28 days after an individual has been given access to their e-visa. Where there is an error on the e-visa which is reported to the Home Office and confirmed as an error that needs correcting, we will generally extend support until that error is corrected. Support in accessing an e-visa is available via our assisted digital service for those with limited digital skills, and charities and voluntary organisations across the UK are being funded to provide free help and information to vulnerable people who need support.

There was also some discussion of the notification process following a decision and interaction with the move-on period. While individuals are notified in the grant letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks prevent us outlining an exact date at this point. Despite this, every effort is made to ensure that these notices are provided as early as possible. The only way to implement such an approach would be to delay serving the asylum decision, as my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint said at the Second Reading. I am sure that all Members would agree that every effort should be made to serve an asylum decision as soon as we possibly can.

On the timing of the pilot, I am afraid I will not be able to provide much greater comfort to my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We are considering the exact date when the pilot will end. We will write up a suitable notice to confirm this date, and all individuals will continue to receive 56 days’ notice until this point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about involving refugee organisations. I use this opportunity, given that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned it, to commend the work of HIAS+JCORE, an organisation I have some familiarity with, particularly under the leadership of my friend Rabbi David Mason. I am not in a position to give the detail at this point, but it is something we can reflect on.

I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Lister and all who have participated in today’s Committee. It is important not to see the extension of the move-on period of 56 days as a simple and straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why an array of wider support measures and initiatives are in place. We remain committed to working with partners so that we can continue improving the processes, communications and services that support a smooth transition from Home Office support for newly granted refugees.