Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Committee

15:08:00

Clause 1: Prescribed period under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, I rise to quote from the Companion: “It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7pm on Thursdays, and by about 3pm on Fridays”, unless agreed otherwise through the normal channels. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who reminded the House on Tuesday evening of this convention. Yet this week we finished at 11.15 pm on Monday, 11.57 pm on Tuesday and 1.17 am on Wednesday. Now His Majesty’s Government, as I understand it, are seeking that we extend yet again, on a Friday, beyond 3 pm without agreement and, in fact, without even a request, flouting convention, and, if I may say so, showing a lack of consideration for the House authorities.

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is the normal convention that we rise at the hours that he set out, but we also have a problem in this House at the moment: we are struggling to work to these conventions. I have struggled to get agreement with the Opposition on a number of Bills. He mentioned the late sittings this week. Sadly, we have had degroupings and Second Reading speeches on amendments and, frankly, the time has been wasted—and it is not this side of the House doing that. I want to get back to the days when we respected our conventions and could have dinner breaks, QSDs and stuff. We timetabled today’s business to finish at around 3 pm, but, sadly, we have not got there. I also know that my noble friend Lady Lister has prepared for this Bill today and that the right reverend Prelate has come in especially to speak on this, and I am not prepared to have them come in and be wasted. I want us to carry on. If the noble Lord wants to divide the House, then may he please do so? There is no problem with that at all—but I think we need to carry on, and quickly. If we all work together, we will be able to go home very soon and deal with these important Bills.

My Lords, I pick up on one comment on wasted time. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that spending just over an hour and a half on a very important Bill with many issues in it was wasting time. I thought it was important, needed examination and has significant impact, as I said in the debate on local authorities.

My Lords, before the noble Lord goes to the Dispatch Box, he knows that I was not aware of what has gone on in the background with the usual channels, and I agree with him about brevity, but, as my noble friend has just pointed out, the debates that have just gone on have been within the rules, the speeches have not gone over time and have been done with good humour. Talking personally, I stayed late into this House until 1.15 am to support the Government Front Bench—the noble Lord’s noble friends—on a very important issue. I have spent a lot of time into the early hours this week, and my understanding was that business would end at 3 pm. I understand and agree with the noble Lord, but this noble Lord has supported the Government this week until the very early hours of the morning.

My Lords, I am not suggesting that about today at all. No one should think that about today. I heard only part of the debate and thought it was very good. I have huge respect for the noble Lord, as he knows, and I say it again. I know he is doing it very sincerely, but my point was about this week. We all need to respect the conventions and courtesies. As I said, my noble friend has prepared for this Bill and come in, and the right reverend Prelate has turned up here today; I am not prepared to say that we should ignore that and go home. If the noble Lord wants to divide the House, will he please do so? Then, we will decide. If not, let us get on with the Bill, and we will go home very soon.

My Lords, I add just a couple of sentences to what the Chief Whip has just said. Some of us have a five-hour journey ahead of us this evening, into more rural parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he would like to bear that in mind.

I do bear that in mind, absolutely. I fully understand that. To that, I say that we either divide the House now or get on with the Bill.

15:15:00

My Lords, I oppose the clauses in this group standing part, and have tabled the amendment in this group, to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the substance of her Bill, which it flies in the face of the work we did in Government to disincentivise illegal migrants from coming to this country. The Bill seeks to blur the principles of an effective immigration system. It takes an already generous and carefully balanced settlement, which provides support during the asylum process and a 28-day window for transition, and seeks to stretch it beyond what is reasonable, affordable or justifiable. It does so at a time when public services are straining, our housing system is under pressure and public confidence in immigration is fragile. We have been told that this is about compassion. However, I respectfully suggest that true compassion is not measured in the number of weeks that we allow people to remain on support—I hasten to add, after their claim has failed—but lies in a rules-based system that commands public trust and operates fairly and firmly for all. Only with a system like that can we ensure that taxpayer money is responsibly spent and ensure that those with a legitimate asylum claim are not disadvantaged—punished for doing the right thing. Extending support from 28 days to 56 is not a neutral act. It has real costs, financial, systemic and social. Logically, it doubles the burden on the taxpayer, it undermines deterrence, it creates further incentives for people to make dangerous illegal crossings, and it risks encouraging delay and non-compliance at a time when clarity and enforcement are needed more than ever. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would link the end of the asylum support to the issuance of biometric residence documentation. Let us be clear: that would tie public spending not to legal decisions but to administrative processes, it would shift the burden of bureaucracy onto the taxpayer and it would create a perverse incentive to delay, further muddying the boundaries of legal status and responsibility. The message that we send with the Bill and its accompanying amendments is not one of fairness or order; it is a message that, even after your claim has been rejected, you may continue to receive taxpayer support indefinitely so long as the paperwork is pending. That is not sustainable, enforceable or fair. Beyond the principle, we need to be clear in our deliberations today about what this proposal would do in practice. The Bill would increase the costs of a system already stretched to its limits, reward failed claims and give new arguments to those who seek to undermine our efforts to deter illegal and unsafe migration—the very journeys that have already claimed far too many lives. We support a compassionate, efficient and credible asylum system, but credibility requires that decisions mean something. When a claim is rejected, particularly after legal challenge and appeal, support must begin to taper off. It should not increase or be deferred; it should conclude as part of an orderly, lawful process. This is not a question of rejecting compassion; it is a matter of applying responsibility to the taxpayer, to the rule of law and to those who play by the rules. For all those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the Bill and, in doing so, affirm our shared commitment to a fair but firm immigration system where the rights of refugees are respected but so, too, are the rights and responsibilities of the British public.

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.

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.

15:30:00

Opposing the Bill does absolutely nothing to address the issues raised at Second Reading; it merely means rejecting the outcome of a pilot of which we have not seen the evaluation. Supporting the pilot and tweaking it would address them. I accept, before someone picks up my logic on this, that we have not seen the evaluation either, but the evidence from the sector is overwhelming that it should be extended.

My Lords, I am pleased to support the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on asylum support and her Amendments 1 and 2, which would enable the Government to extend the move-on period according to their plans and timetable. The Bill is extraordinarily well timed, with the move-on period pilot coming to a close and the Government having recently published their White Paper entitled Restoring Control over the Immigration System. As the Government reduce the backlog of asylum applications and speed up the process times of applications, I suggest that this Bill does not impede but rather supports the Government as they seek to build a well-managed asylum system with integration back at its heart. At Second Reading, I spoke of why 28 days was simply not enough time for an individual with newly granted refugee status to locate new accommodation, try to find employment and navigate a welfare system. This should now be regarded as indisputable, given that an individual cannot even access universal credit before five weeks have passed, that the majority of landlords will not even let a property before a first payment has come in and that setting up a bank account is proving difficult with an e-visa alone. On this latter point, I hope that the Government will consider issuing guidance to banking services. I do not want to anticipate the findings of the Government’s NatCen evaluation, but local authorities and other groups supporting refugees who have kindly been in touch with me have provided overwhelmingly positive feedback, as we have heard, about the extension of the move-on period. We have to take that seriously. They tell me that it gives council officers a much more realistic timeframe in which to do their jobs well—namely, to find a suitable housing solution for refugees, decreasing the likelihood of homelessness and the need for temporary accommodation. London Councils reported that one region experienced a 24% increase in homelessness prevention outcomes. The Helen Bamber Foundation said that, of the individuals it has supported since the move-on period was extended, all had received their first universal credit payment before the date of their eviction. This not only prevents refugees falling into destitution just as they are taking their first steps to build a life outside Home Office-provided accommodation, but avoids the need for local authorities to provide emergency financial support. This will lead to savings at a time when we all know that budgets are under pressure. I was also struck by comments that the longer period has enabled local services to build trust with families, as housing teams have been able to start moving away from an emergency response towards a more preventive and strategic approach. There has been time to assess individuals’ physical and mental health needs, as well as to consider their existing support networks so that they can work together towards housing solutions. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the final evaluation will be published. Will it include detail on the impact that the longer move-on extension has had on family stability and child poverty? Incidentally, I am sure that this will support their work ahead of the child poverty strategy. We will hear more, I am sure, in the next grouping about the sensible provisions in Amendment 1 regarding documentation. However, making the move-on period extension a permanent feature of our asylum system will enable steps such as this to take place, which will streamline the timely delivery of key information so that the entire 56-day period can be fully utilised to support a family’s next steps. I believe that Ministers have recognised the benefits of a longer move-on period for refugees, as well as for local authorities and the wider community, through the commencement of the pilot. I thank them for that and congratulate them on it. I now urge them to make it permanent as soon as is practical after the conclusion and full assessment of the pilot, to capitalise on the positive developments that are already taking place. Let us not forget that asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status here are unable to build a life back in their home country—however much they might want to—because it is too unsafe. The gift of more time will support refugees who have a legally established right to live here to start living well in the country that has granted them sanctuary. I may not have agreed with the words the Prime Minister used recently to frame the Government’s White Paper, but I trust the intention is there to see neighbours from all backgrounds build a stronger and more cohesive society together. Extending the move-on period permanently would be a step towards that goal.

I came into the House today to support this Bill, and I am glad we have found the time for it. The context is that this country has a long and honourable history of welcoming refugees. That is something that we can feel proud of and from which we have benefited over many centuries. That is the background to this. Whatever you think of the individuals who apply to live in this country and their motives, they are all entitled to due process in that application. We must not as a state put ourselves in the position of pre-empting that proper inquiry. That is why dealing with the applications swiftly is so important. I am glad the Government are pressing that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, called what is proposed here “generous”. I think that is a difficult word to apply in any circumstances, but I would use “humane” and “practical” to describe the proposal. What people need to do after the decision has been made takes time. The issue is not one of being generous; it is of giving them enough time to sort out their affairs. That is true whether the application has been agreed or not. I do not think it makes any difference to the period of time that is required to sort out your affairs. It is quite clear from the work undertaken in the pilot study that 56 days works so much better than 28. That is as much a benefit to society as a whole as it is to the individuals. That is the point: giving 56 days works for society. That is why London Councils is so much in favour of this and wants to see the pilot extended. The situation would be much easier if applicants were able to undertake paid work, perhaps after an initial short waiting period, and I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will take this as a further representation on the issue. Action on this would just make the situation as a whole better, as permitting them to adjust to life in their new country or make arrangements to go elsewhere is so important.

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—

It was 4.16 in the morning.

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.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jamieson for this group. These clause stand part notices and the amendment seek fundamentally to oppose the purpose of this Bill. The Bill seeks to provide an extension to the period in which those who have failed to secure an asylum claim can continue to receive support for housing and subsistence at the expense of the taxpayer.

My Lords, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This Bill is about people who have succeeded in their claim for refugee status, so can the noble Lord’s remarks please be put on a premise that is true to the facts?

15:45:00

My Lords, I shall continue and maybe it will become clear to the noble Baroness. Once a claim for asylum has been determined and found to be without merit, the presumption must shift. At that point, the focus should be on compliance with our immigration system, not on prolonging support mechanisms that are intended for those still within the asylum process. This Bill would do precisely the opposite. By this stage, the decision has been reached. The current system balances support for the person in question while recognising that the person has, according to the determination reached, no reason to remain in the United Kingdom. We have a duty to the person in question, but we also have a fundamental duty to the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, foots the bill. By extending the support period from 28 to 56 days, all we do is risk creating a further incentive for delay and non-compliance. It sends entirely the wrong message, not just to those currently in the system, but to those considering making unfounded claims in the future.

I am sorry, but I am really confused, because what the noble Lord has said conflates two issues: those who have not been given leave to remain and those who have and for whom therefore the extension period is in order to give them a little bit longer to sort themselves out. They have been given their permission. Perhaps the noble Lord could either explain what I am failing to understand or clarify whether his point is about those who have been given leave to remain or who have not.

Those who have not.

As it is Committee, I am allowed to speak more than once. This Bill is not about people who have not been given leave to remain; it is about people who have received refugee status. The reason why I brought forward the Bill originally—I have been campaigning on this for years—is the heartache felt by refugees who finally reach the promised land, in a sense, by being recognised as having refugee status and then find themselves destitute. This is who we are talking about. We are not talking about people who have no right to be here; we are talking about those whose right is recognised. That is the whole point.

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.

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.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this matter. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for clarifying—it is an important clarification—that the aim is that the clause should apply only to people where there has been a determination that they have leave to remain, not to those where the determination is that they have been rejected. That is my understanding of what the noble Baroness said. Our concern on this side is that, with the way in which the Bill is written, this measure could potentially apply both to those who have leave to remain and those who have been rejected. Obviously, I do not want to withdraw this, because that is not the process. However, we wish to leave open the fact that we want clarity—and want there to be no confusion—that this measure would not apply to those who have had their case determined and rejected. This is a critical point on which we would like some assurance and to which we will come back in terms of the drafting of the Bill. The points that we have made about those who have had their application rejected are perfectly valid. I have not heard anyone here say that, for those who have been rejected, they have an objection to our comments. This measure is for those cases where people have had their application accepted, so to speak. I completely understand the comments that have been made in this Chamber—if I am entirely honest, when I was the chairman of the LGA, I pushed for something not entirely dissimilar—but I would definitely say that this is not what we should be doing for those who have been rejected. We are looking at the drafting to make sure that this is absolutely clear and cannot be misinterpreted by some eagle-eyed lawyer. Obviously, I am not going to withdraw my clause stand part notice, because that is not the process here; I just wanted to be very clear about where our concern is, which is in the drafting. We want to make absolutely certain that this measure does not apply to those who have been rejected.

16:00:00

The noble Lord is making some helpful remarks. I am not an expert on the Bill’s drafting but, to extend his remarks and in particular with his local government experience, if he gets the clarification he seeks, would that mean that he and even the Opposition Front Bench would feel able to support the purpose of the Bill, even if they slightly disagree with its drafting?

I am trying to remember a great quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson: the noble Baroness is tempting me to go to places I would rather not go.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Issuing of biometric residence document(1) Section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Interpretation of Part VI) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (3), insert “, subject to subsection (3A)”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where—(a) the Secretary of State notifies the claimant that his decision is to accept the asylum claim,(b) the Secretary of State notifies the claimant that his decision is to reject the asylum claim but at the same time notifies the claimant that he is giving the claimant limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or (c) an appeal by the claimant against the Secretary of State’s decision has been disposed of by being allowed,then the period prescribed under subsection (3) may not begin until the claimant has access to a relevant biometric immigration document.(3B) for the purposes of subsection (3A), a relevant biometric immigration document is a document that—(a) records biometric information (as defined in section 15(1A) of the UK Borders Act 2007); and(b) is evidence of leave to remain in the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would require a newly recognised refugee to have access to a biometric residence document that can be used as proof of immigration status and identity before the start of the prescribed period between a refugee being granted refugee status and the ending of their eligibility for accommodation and financial support provided by the Home Office.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, both now and earlier—at least those who have spoken in support of the amendments and the Bill. I will need to look at the details of what both the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend the Minister said. I addressed the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, made at Second Reading about delay, because actually better delay before rather than after the move-on period starts, and that may be something that the department could reflect on. One thought struck me as the noble Lord was speaking: when the pilot ends, we do not want to go from the 56 days back to 28 days, then the evaluation may shows that actually it was very successful and the Home Office thinks “Yes, actually we should stick with 56 days”. I am not asking for an answer now, but I suggest that the Home Office consider that the 56 days should last. It could stop being evaluated at a certain point, but, until a decision is made about the future, it should carry on at 56 days, because it will confuse everybody if we go back to 28 days and then forward to 56 days. I will leave it at that. I thank people very much for engaging. Again, I apologise that people have been kept so late, but that is largely beyond my control. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendments 2 to 4 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn, and, in doing so, I wish everyone a good weekend, although not as long as normal. I particularly thank all the members of the staff of the House for their, as always, excellent service this week.

House adjourned at 4.17 pm.