Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names and to the Refugee Council. I also declare, and am grateful for, help received from RAMP as an associate. The proposed new clause would ensure that newly recognised refugees have at least 56 days to move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support—commonly called the move-on period. I have tabled the amendment because, having introduced a pilot in December last year to extend the move-on period from 28 to 56 days to great acclaim, the Government, with minimal warning, reverted to 28 days in September for most childless adults of working age. Yet the pilot, together with the independent evaluation of it, had only recently been extended from its original end date in June. The Home Affairs Select Committee spoke for many when it recently said that it found the decision “extremely disappointing”. I and other noble Lords made the case for the extension to 56 days in the debates on my Private Member’s Bill on the subject, because 28 days is simply not long enough to sort out the practicalities involved in the move from asylum support. The result is all too often homelessness and destitution, with devastating psychological effects. What should be a time of joy turns into a nightmare. Young people in particular, according to Young Roots, “are thrown into crisis in which they may be unsafe and at risk of harm”, just when they hope “to get on with rebuilding their lives”. We are talking not just about those officially considered vulnerable groups who will continue with the 56-day period, because all those affected are potentially vulnerable, as the Boaz Trust has shown. In Committee on the PMB, I presented evidence from a range of NGOs on how well the pilot was working. In the words of NACCOM, the UK-wide No Accommodation Network, the extension to 56 days had “proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”. Similarly, London Councils called it a “vital support” and pointed to a number of positive effects. In a recent letter to the Minister, it states that “extensive evidence shared by partners … shows that this was a successful policy initiative in reducing risks of rough sleeping and leading to better and more joined up responses across the system”. British Red Cross reports similar findings from a range of local authorities. This is not surprising, given that an earlier LGA survey found that the extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen by its members as the single most effective change that could be made to the move-on period. It is also not surprising, therefore, that the response to the reversion to 28 days for most refugees has been overwhelmingly negative. London Councils warns that it “will put the progress that we have made so far at risk”, and that it is particularly concerning as we approach the winter period. In a letter to the relevant Secretaries of State on behalf of more than 60 organisations, Homeless Link and NACCOM made it clear that they believed the change to be harmful, fearing that it would “increase homelessness and rough sleeping, cause individual harm, put pressure on local statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and undermine the government’s commitment to ending homelessness through a cross-departmental strategy”. The letter continued: “The emerging evidence we have, including testimony from our respective member organisations and from a survey NACCOM conducted of its members, indicates that the 56-day pilot has helped reduce rates of homelessness and enabled more people to successfully move on from Home Office accommodation and begin to integrate and participate in their communities”. Surely, this is exactly what the Government want to happen. Young Roots, which very kindly sent me evidence about the impact of the change, reports that: “56 days works. It was very clear during the 56-day pilot that the longer move-on period was beneficial for everyone”. Its front-line staff report that it helped with claiming universal credit, opening a bank account and finding accommodation. Importantly, its safeguarding data showed a 50% reduction in safeguarding incidents during the six months of the pilot. Previously, the most common reason for a safeguarding incident raised was homelessness. Young refugees themselves are clear that they cannot manage the transition in 28 days. One said: “28 days are not enough to apply for universal credit and open a bank account, so we need at least 56 days”. Caseworkers have commented how the young people have been calmer, as “there isn’t such a sense of desperation”, and that a longer move-on period has helped them to “begin planning their futures with greater stability and dignity”. The longer move-on period may not be a silver bullet, but it has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect. I appreciate the pressure to reduce the use of asylum hotels, but it should not be vulnerable refugees who have to pay the price. When questioned on “Panorama” about why the unexpected change, Minister Norris answered that “artificially inflating the period that someone stays in a hotel is not doing them a favour”, and that it is in a refugee’s interest for the period to be as short as possible. Is it in their interest to be turfed out on to the streets and made destitute? I think not. There is nothing artificial about increasing the period to that already operative in homelessness legislation. If anything, it was the original 28 days that was artificial, or “arbitrary”, to use the word used by the Home Secretary, who said something very similar earlier in answer to an Oral Question. This is worrying, as it suggests that the new team in the Home Office is simply out of touch with the evidence, yet surely this Government believe in evidence-based policy-making. Young Roots tells us that, “since the pilot was suddenly ended, we are already seeing the devastating impact on young refugees”, with a “50 per cent increase in the number of young people experiencing street homelessness”. Referrals to supported accommodation are being rejected because they do not yet have the necessary universal credit documentation. The organisation is really worried about the health and well-being of young refugees as winter approaches. Similarly, Islington Council reports that “far more people have been referred to our local Crisis homeless shelter” and more are sleeping rough. It argues that, “this is a clear indication that the shortening of the move-on period has shunted costs from central on to local government and the voluntary sector”, as well as, as I have already said, on to refugees themselves. In response to a topical Oral Question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, my noble friend the Minister repeatedly talked about “tweaking” rather than ending the pilot, but I hope he will accept that what he calls tweaking is causing real harm. My noble friend also responded more than once that “the vast majority” of newly recognised refugees are not affected, but given that we are constantly being told that most are single young men, and that in a Written Answer the Home Office was not able to provide data on the proportion of newly recognised refugees who are exempt, I cannot see how he can say that. In conclusion, in a helpful letter to me, my noble friend the Minister said that the outcomes of the evaluation of the pilot “will be used to inform longer term policy proposals”. With winter approaching, I make a plea on behalf of organisations on the ground and the refugees they work with, as well as local authorities, to revert to 56 days immediately. At the very least, will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the evaluation reflects the positive evidence I have received of the pilot’s impact, the Government will, in the name of evidence-based policy-making, make the pilot permanent for all newly recognised refugees? I beg to move.