Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Jamieson and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the organisations in the north-east noted:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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