Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to make as smooth as possible the move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support for newly recognised refugees, an aim on which I am sure we can all agree.

To this end, the Bill would do simply two things. First, it would increase, from 28 to 56 days, this move-on period to give newly recognised refugees the time they need to make this transition. Having 56 days would synchronise with the period local authorities are given to work with households at risk of homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It would also provide sufficient time for a universal credit claim to be processed, which 28 days does not.

Secondly, the Bill would require the Home Office to inform an asylum seeker when their asylum support will end at the same time as they are told the outcome of their asylum claim, and it would ensure that the eviction notice is at least as long as the overall move-on period. In other words, it would mean that all the documentation had to arrive at the same time, which it rarely does at present, and it would provide a more reasonable eviction notice period in line with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Renters’ Rights Bill. It is thus very welcome that, just over a week ago, the Home Office told local authorities that, from this week, the first clause of the Bill was in effect being implemented, but—there is always a “but”—only as an interim measure during the period of increased decision-making and the transition to e-visas, expected to last until June next year.

In view of this, and in introducing my Bill, I will do two things. First, I will explain why, as positive as this move is, the problem it addresses is long-term and systemic, and not simply a product of current policy developments, even if they have aggravated it. Secondly, I will raise some practical concerns and questions about the interim measure, many of which emerged at a meeting of the APPG on Refugees last week.

Before going any further, I thank Jon Featonby and Hayden Banks of the Refugee Council and Heather Staff of RAMP for all their help. Here I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. I also thank the myriad organisations and individuals who have been in touch, generally unsolicited, to voice their support and to offer their help. Many took part in a very helpful Zoom call last month. I have been bowled over by the strength and extent of the support I have received from around the country and by the number of organisations—refugee, homelessness, such as Crisis, and local authority—that have been calling for this change.

I first attempted to do something about this during the passage of the then Immigration Bill 2016. To be fair, since then there have been a number of attempts to make the whole process work better, and I am grateful to various members of the previous Government for their role in that. However, a promise made during the passage of that Bill to bring forward a proposal to amend the regulations, if an evaluation pilot through which assistance was provided with the transition did not solve the problems, came to nothing. Even though it has become patently clear that such assistance might be helpful, including now asylum move-on liaison officers, it does not address the issue that 28 days simply is not enough time.

I would have difficulty navigating the complexities of trying to secure a stable home, apply for UC, open a bank account and look for work all in 28 days. How on earth do we expect someone who is relatively new to the country, may have language difficulties and may have undergone trauma, to manage it? It is not long enough, even if all the processes were done properly. As was clear from our Zoom call, all too often they are not done properly, so all kinds of practical problems arise. I will detail the hurdles that a refugee can face claiming UC—identified by the UNHCR and British Red Cross—but, even if all goes smoothly, UC is not paid for five weeks. An advance payment spells hardship down the line, when it is deducted from the weekly benefit, especially given that newly recognised refugees are very unlikely to have savings to fall back on.

I note here the problem of digital exclusion—identified by the British Red Cross in particular and strongly reaffirmed at last week’s APPG meeting—as I fear that this might loom even larger with the advent of e-visas in place of biometric residence permits. Indeed, there is a general concern among refugee organisations, such as the Refugee Council, that e-visas could aggravate the difficulties of the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister throw some light on how they will work and what their impact will be on the move-on period? In particular, can he explain how the digitally excluded will access their UKVI account, and can he assure me that the move-on period will not commence until a UKVI account and e-visa have been accessed? My understanding is that this will not be the case, which could mean a move-on period of less than 56 days in practice. If so, would refugees at least be able to apply for UC and access housing services without the e-visa? This all underlines the importance of the Bill’s requirement that all documentation is sent together.

The impact of the inadequate move-on period on newly recognised refugees is both material and psychological. Barnardo’s has detailed the damaging effects it can have on children, and, as the BRC points out, this can include age-disputed children awaiting a local authority age assessment or challenging an assessment, while having to navigate the complexities of adult support. Two words jump out when considering the evidence of the material impact: homelessness and destitution. These are not new problems, even if they have got worse over the past year. Not only is homelessness all too frequent but destitution means that, once asylum support is withdrawn, refugees are left with no money to buy the most basic necessities, such as food, shoes or toiletries, and, as the BRC warns, they are at heightened risk of exploitation.

It does not take much imagination to grasp the psychological impact of the stress, anxiety and mental distress caused by all this, especially when taking into account that many of those affected have already suffered trauma and torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status, but instead they are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time. It is more like a state of purgatory. It was evidence of the despair that this caused that first alerted me to the issue a decade ago. It was highlighted recently by an email from one of the many volunteers supporting the Bill. She wrote from Derbyshire:

“Just this last week I have had to try and comfort a man who was in despair having received his good news on his leave to remain, news that had immediately left him overwhelmed by the task in front of him. To see a man in tears at what should be such good news, after knowing that he had already survived so much suffering, left me feeling sick and helpless and also ashamed at how many obstacles this country presents to those whom we offer shelter and safety”.


As well as the immediate impact on refugees, the inadequate move-on period undermines this Government’s own aspiration to ensure their integration, a point made forcefully by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees and by London Councils, as well as by individual local authorities such as Islington Council, which is unable to undertake resettlement work as a consequence. Here it is worth noting the need for more funding for local authorities if they are to provide newly recognised refugees with adequate support.

Many of the points I have made are illustrated by a case study I received from Young Roots, which it says is typical of the homeless young refugees it is supporting. Sayed is a 21 year-old who fled the war in Sudan and suffered torture en route to the UK. After two years, he was granted refugee status in August. His relief at finally realising his dreams of rebuilding his life were short-lived. Despite him immediately taking all the practical steps necessary with the help of the Young Roots youth club, his appointment with the local authority housing team to assess his needs was not until four days before he was due to be evicted. Although Sayed tried to use the time to find something himself, he was hindered by the fact that he had no income and would not receive his first UC payment for five weeks. The local authority was unable to help him within the 28-day timeframe and he ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of his asylum hotel. He was approached by drug dealers who offered him money and accommodation if he would work for them. Eventually, after 24 days of rough sleeping, he was offered a room by the local authority, in an area where he knew no one. The experience of those at Young Roots tells them that the practical and psychological effects of all this are likely to be long-lasting on someone so young and vulnerable.

At this point, I had planned to try to pre-empt the arguments that I thought my noble friend might make in defence of 28 days. Happily, I no longer need to do so. However, I will raise a number of concerns and questions about the interim measure, which I have shared in advance with him.

Although it is good that the change will take effect as the weather gets colder, it does seem rather rushed. What steps have been taken to ensure that individual local authorities and front-line staff are aware of the change and of their responsibility to provide homelessness assistance as soon as the decision letter has been received? How will the policy be communicated to voluntary sector organisations, especially those that the Home Office is not in direct contact with? Will the details be published on GOV.UK, so that they can be easily referred to?

I have to say that the process seems unnecessarily complicated—I needed a wet towel round my head to make sense of it. I suspect that newly recognised refugees could have real difficulties in knowing what it all means for them. Is there a reason why the documentation process has not been simplified so that it can all be received at the same time, as proposed in the Bill?

I have already warned that receiving e-visas later than the decision letter could, in practice, reduce the 56 days. Could my noble friend clarify whether the 56 days starts from the date of decision or does it, as now, allow for two days for the letter to be received? If the decision letter is sent to the wrong address—which happens all too frequently—will the move-on period be extended to allow for lost time?

I welcome that the evaluation will be carried out independently, but can my noble friend assure me that the Home Office will take account of the potentially negative impact of the switch to e-visas when determining the interim measure’s success? Could he explain the criteria that the interim scheme will be evaluated against—beyond the impact on homelessness—and the data on which it will be based? One point made strongly at the APPG meeting was that the evaluation should involve newly recognised refugees themselves, so that it captures the lived experience of those most affected. Will this be the case? Finally, will the findings, including the interim findings, be published, and will Parliament be able to debate them?

I still believe that there is a need for this Bill, to address what is a long-term problem, although we all realise that it is not a silver bullet. Tellingly, a survey of Local Government Association members found that extending the move-on period to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as

“the single most effective change”

to the move-on process—a position supported by London Councils also.

Moreover, this is a policy change that does not require extra spending. According to research conducted by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE, it could save money.

As my noble friend Lord Coaker said from the Front Bench in 2022, echoing the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2017, chaired by the current Home Secretary:

“The 28-day move-on period is simply not long enough to put basic arrangements in place … we should be able to do better”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1068.]


In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who regrets that he is unable to speak today because of a funeral, the case “seems unanswerable”.

At our last—I trust friendly—encounter, my noble friend was warned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I and others pressing these issues have gained the reputation of being terriers, not all of whom could be here today. He generously extolled the virtues of parliamentary terriers and, in effect, gave me carte blanche to continue chewing his legs, as he put it. After nearly a decade chewing at ministerial legs on this issue, only for it to get worse despite administrative tweaks, I fervently hope that the Government will respond positively to the widespread, strong support for the Bill and that we can put an end to the misery caused by the 28-day move-on period, not just on an interim basis but permanently and enshrined in law. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the Bill, as all but one person did. Although the Minister did not give me the Christmas present that I might have liked—I did not really expect that—he did, in a sense, accept the principles behind the Bill.

I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us that we are talking about accepted refugees. She also emphasised the importance of listening to those with lived experience of the move-on period. I am not sure that my noble friend the Minister said anything about that in terms of evaluation. I will read Hansard, but I may have to come back to him on that and a few other details. It is important that the evaluation is not just of a top-down, statistical type but that we listen to what people are going through.

I am not going to get into metaphors about Good King Wenceslas, but I very much agree with the question of the right to work, because it is crucial to integration. If this group had had the right to paid work, the move-on period would be less problematic than it is.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Davies for emphasising the extent to which this is particularly experienced in London. But it is experienced not only in London. I live in the east Midlands, where I am a patron of the Nottingham Refugee Forum; I spoke very briefly about this at its recent AGM. The result was like a wildfire telegraph around the east Midlands by people working on this issue, some of whom have written to quite a few noble Lords. This is a real issue in the east Midlands as well, and more widely. It might be experienced more acutely in London but it is not just a London issue; it is much wider than that.

I cannot cover everything that was said, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked an important question, which I am not sure was answered, about whether or not somebody already in the 28 day-period is covered by this. It seems a bit unfair if one person finds that they have a much shorter period than, say, the person they have been sharing a room with. Perhaps the Minister can look at that. I must admit I had not thought of it, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look at that point. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not answering her. I can give her limited reassurance, and I will write to both her and my noble friend Lady Lister on that point. I will also cover the Syria point, which I did not mention in my response because of the lack of time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I realise that it was not possible for him to cover everything in his response. A follow-up letter to everyone who spoke would be very helpful.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blower who, like many noble Lords, supported the right to work and talked about the impact on children. I am pleased that my fellow terrier the noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the question of age assessment. I should warn noble Lords that another group of terriers will in the new year be chewing away on the question of age assessment, so they have that joy awaiting them.

I loved the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that a grace period is never for a limited pilot period and that a true period of grace would be permanent. I hope that will be taken back to the Home Office; even for those such as myself who do not have faith, it was a very telling point.

My noble friend Lord Davies asked about research. Will the evaluation try to find out the time that it takes to move on? I have noticed that a point that has not been made by Ministers recently, but that used to be made, is that somehow it is all the fault of the refugee because they do not move fast enough and do not get on with it. That is partly why I chose the particular case study that I did. Here was a young man who did everything he was supposed to do at once and ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of the asylum hotel he had been in.

Moving on to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I have been reliably told that, during the period that he was Home Office Minister, there was a 302% increase in the number of refugee households in England owed either a relief or prevention duty after leaving Home Office accommodation. The noble Lord might have wanted to reflect on whether the 28-day period was working satisfactorily. I do not care who introduced it. I am very critical of a whole lot of things that my party introduced—I think it took away the right to work, but that does not make it the correct thing to have done. I am sorry that he did not reflect on that.

The noble Lord talked about costs. As I said, the research suggests that this would save money and achieve net savings. The amount is not huge, at probably £4 million to £7 million a year. The question is who bears the cost. Is it the Home Office? Is it individual vulnerable refugees? Is it local authorities? Is it the voluntary sector? It is a question of where the costs are borne; it is not an extra cost at all.

I will continue to argue, and I think noble Lords agreed, that, welcome as this interim scheme is, the assumption should be that it will be permanent. If it all goes pear-shaped then it may be that we will want to look at it again, but we need to think about how we make it legally permanent. I intend to continue to press the Bill. If the Minister wants three cheers from me, it is a question not just of the right to work but of accepting the Bill. Although he very kindly said that he would be pleased for the terriers to continue to chew at his ankles, I would much prefer not to have to chew at ministerial ankles. I want an outcome—I do not want to carry on chewing, despite the change of Government. I will leave it at that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

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.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Those who have not.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

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.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

[Lord 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.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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.