Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, I note my practical support from RAMP. I fear that hotels, together with small boats, have become an obsession of the right, used by some to whip up hostility to asylum seekers, the dreadful results of which we saw last summer in the riots. The impression given is that asylum seekers are living a comfortable life in four-star hotels. Not so, as shown by three recent reports from the Helen Bamber Foundation and Asylum Aid, IPPR, and Women for Refugee Women. They paint a picture of “terrible living conditions”: unhygienic and dilapidated accommodation; overcrowding and lack of privacy, with enforced room sharing; very poor and inadequate food; and accommodation that is often unsuitable for children. Women, many of whom have fled gender-based violence, can be subject to various controlling practices, isolation from support networks, and degrading and voyeuristic behaviour from hotel staff. Overall, the effect is frequently exacerbation of mental health problems and re-traumatisation. Of particular concern is the situation of children, including those wrongly assessed as adults, who are forced to share rooms with adults with no safeguards, to the detriment of their mental health. I gently remind my noble friend the Minister that he owes me a letter on this issue from when I raised it at Oral Questions in November. I am not defending the use of hotels—far from it—but in the immediate short term they are at least preferable to even worse large sites, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, which is thankfully closed now, and to homelessness, the lot of all too many asylum seekers when they receive refugee status. The extension of the 28 days move-on period to 56 days for a trial period is thus welcome, even if it means a longer stay in a hotel—though the consensus is that this should be made permanent. In the longer term, the current policy of moving towards dispersal to community-based accommodation in collaboration with local authorities is the answer and has Local Government Association support. It chimes with calls from many groups and the Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I urge my noble friend the Minister to read the commission’s report if he has not yet done so. Also, is he considering triggering the break clause with private providers next year? Finally, as noted at Oral Questions last week, an immediate step that would reduce pressure on accommodation would be to allow asylum seekers to undertake paid work after six months. The chair of the Migration Advisory Committee notes that if the laudable aim of processing asylum claims within six months is met it would cease to be relevant, but otherwise there is a strong argument from both integration and public finances perspectives. The standard Home Office response—that it would act as a pull factor—was dismissed by the Institute for Government as an example of policy based on “ill-founded assumptions” rather than good evidence. I am afraid I do not find my noble friend’s argument that he made last week—that it could lead to illegal work—very persuasive, either. A new Government provides the opportunity to develop a comprehensive and positive integration policy for asylum seekers and refugees that would make the use of hotels redundant. This should be the priority.