Memorandum by the London Borough of Hillingdon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The London Borough of Hillingdon is
the western most borough in Greater London. Its 42 square miles
makes it London's second largest borough. It is home to a diverse
population, representing a vast range of cultures and nationalities.
The borough was formed in 1965 from the Municipal Borough of Uxbridge,
Hayes and Harlington Urban District, Ruislip-Northwood Urban District
and Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District of Middlesex.
1.2 Strategically, Hillingdon is the "Gateway
to London" and as the home of Heathrow Airport, it is also
the world's foremost gateway to the UK. Hillingdon's population
has increased considerably in the past few years and this figure
is expected to continue to rise. As it grows, the borough's population
is expected to become more ethnically diverse.
1.3 Due to its proximity of the world's
busiest international airport, Hillingdon receives a diverse range
of migrants and faces some unique challenges. We are therefore
ideally placed to contribute to this enquiry with regards to the
effectiveness and expenditure of local government in promoting
community cohesion and responding to inward migration.
1.4 Of particular relevance, The London
Borough of Hillingdon statutorily acts as the "corporate
parent" for more unaccompanied asylum seeker children than
any other borough. We also currently provide for a large number
of asylum care leavers who are not eligible for specific grants
because they have exhausted all appeals on their asylum applications.
1.5 In this written evidence we would like
to draw attention to the responsibilities of local governments
in caring for and integrating unaccompanied asylum seeker children.
We will explain the importance of the services that local councils
provide for integrating these most vulnerable of arrivals, the
inadequacy of current Government funding and also the effects
that the current funding arrangement may have on community cohesion.
2. A CHANGING
POPULATION
2.1 Much like other areas of the UK, Hillingdon
has seen an increase in migration from the eight Central and Eastern
Europe countries since their citizens gained the right to work
in the UK after accession to the European Union. The level of
settlement of people from the A8 countries in Hillingdon has been
relatively high for an outer London Borough. This can be attributed
to the location of Heathrow Airport, the favourable local economy
and our proximity to Slough which has also seen considerable migration.
2.2 What is particularly unique about Hillingdon,
however, is the amount of unaccompanied asylum seeker children
that the council statutorily acts as the "corporate parent"
for once they arrive in the UK through Heathrow Airport.
2.3 Hillingdon also has a statutory obligation
to provide services for approximately 100 asylum care leavers
who are not eligible for specific grants as they have exhausted
all appeals on their asylum applications.
2.4 Migration has worked in Hillingdon and
has benefited our borough. The council, sometimes faced with considerable
challenges, has successfully integrated new arrivals into our
community. However, particularly with reference to child asylum
seekers, integration requires appropriate funding and accurate
planning and our integration reputation is now at risk because
of lack of funding support from central government.
3. UNACCOMPANIED
ASYLUM SEEKER
CHILDREN
3.1 Being the home to the UK's national
airport makes Hillingdon distinct from all other London boroughs
with regards to the effect of unaccompanied asylum seeker children.
Social services at Hillingdon council receive dozens of calls
a week from the airport authorities asking them to collect unaccompanied
children. Hillingdon also has two Asylum Detention Centres in
its borders from which a significant number of referrals are received
to undertake assessments of individuals seeking asylum who have
been detained by Immigration but who are subsequently believed
to be minors.
3.2 Hillingdon is currently responsible
for providing services for over 1,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children—including accommodation, schooling and disability
support.
3.3 For example, the number of asylum seeking
children in care under 18 is equivalent to almost 50% of Hillingdon's
indigenous children's social care caseload placing considerable
demand for the limited number of foster care places. It is vital
that a good service is provided to these most vulnerable of arrivals
in order to integrate them into the local community. This is incredibly
challenging for Hillingdon as the grant funding is not adequate
to provide for staffing levels required to most effectively support
such high numbers of Looked After Children (LAC) and Care Leavers.
3.4 Due to recent changes in funding arrangements,
however, Hillingdon has been under increasing pressure in fulfilling
this responsibility.
3.5 Changes in the Unaccompanied Asylum
Seeker Children Leaving Care Costs Grant in 2004 have detrimentally
impacted on the London Borough of Hillingdon and our subsequent
ability to deal with pressures associated with increasing numbers
of arrivals in the UK. The local Authority is now paying over
£5m each year to cover the shortfall in funding by central
government.
3.6 Before 2004-05, local authorities that
supported more than 44 asylum seeker care leavers aged between
18 and 24, received between £100 and £140 a week from
the Department for Education & Skills (DFES) to provide support
services for each additional leaver over the first 44. The national
sum made available to ALL councils by the (then) DfES was £17
million.
3.7 In October 2005 and January 2006, it
was announced these settlements would change to a flat grant of
£100 a week for every additional asylum seeker care leaver
over the first 25. Crucially, this new settlement would apply
retrospectively and the national pot was reduced by some 35% to
£11 million.
3.8 The impact of these settlement changes—and
the fact it applied retrospectively—were that Hillingdon
had to find an extra £1.6 million for the financial year
2004-05 which was not planned for. It also had to find £3.7
million in the financial year 2005-06 and there will also be an
estimated on-going future budget impact of £4.8 million.
Budgets in 2006-07 (and now in 2007-08) were set with above deficiencies
in mind.
3.9 The costs of providing services under
care leaving responsibilities in 2006-07 are around 24% of the
national cost (falling on one authority). In effect, Hillingdon
is being punished for efficiently carrying out the Government's
own policies on providing for asylum seeker care leavers and seeking
to undertake it's duties to UASC under the Children Acts 1989
& 2004 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
4. EXHAUSTED
ALL APPEAL
ASYLUM SEEKERS
4.1 At any one time Hillingdon provides
for approximately 100 asylum care leavers who are not eligible
for specific grants because the young people concerned have exhausted
all appeals on their asylum applications. Hillingdon has a statutory
obligation to provide these services.
4.2 Whilst Hillingdon meets its obligations
under the Leaving Care Act, the cost of doing so falls disproportionately
on the council taxpayer due to the operation of the grant regime
and the sheer numbers involved in what is a local phenomenon.
Based on a survey in 2006, our shortfall funded by local taxpayers
was £4.8m a year whereas, for Croydon (which is the gateway
for Gatwick Airport) the shortfall is likely to be around £0.8
million.
4.3 The costs to Hillingdon in caring for
these exhausted all appeals asylum seekers comes to between £1
million and £1.5 million a year.
4.4 The Home Office has failed to deport
these exhausted all appeals asylum seekers, and the Government
has failed to take responsibility for remedying this situation.
The Home Office actually contacted council officers in Hillingdon
in September 2005 explaining that they did not know where these
exhausted all appeal asylum seekers were, and asked for a full
list of names and addresses.
5. EFFECTS OF
FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
ON THE
COMMUNITY
5.1 When providing services for and integrating
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children it is essential that adequate
funding is available. However, as the responsibility to provide
this finance lies with the local borough, real difficulty is experienced
in areas such as Hillingdon where there is a disproportionately
high level of these children in care.
5.2 As a result of the funding arrangements
for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and exhausted all appeal
asylum seekers, council tax had to be raised in Hillingdon in
order to meet the costs. In February 2007, Hillingdon announced
a council tax increase of 2.75% with an additional 1% to cover
the costs of supporting asylum seekers who have exhausted all
appeals and have not been removed from the UK by the Home Office.
5.3 Although the government is reviewing
the level of financial support for care leavers through "Planning
better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children",
it is unclear at this stage whether the grant will be maintained
or increased above the level the authority received in 2006/07.
In addition the government Care Matters agenda seeks to improve
the outcomes for all young people in care, with a particular focus
on improving outcomes for care leavers. Given the UASC profile
for Hillingdon, this would have a significant financial impact
on the authority.
5.4 Local community cohesion, the relations
between local residents and arriving asylum seekers, has to date
has been successfully managed in Hillingdon. However, local residents
are aware that the rise in council tax is due in part to accommodating
asylum seekers and there is potential that this will place a strain
on community relations.
5.5 Through the work we have done with multi
ethnic and multi faith forums we can see that there is a real
threat to community cohesion in the borough. Hillingdon's Connecting
Communities forum has written to ministers to express their concerns
about this issue, giving their full, cross-community support to
the council.
6. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The Department for Communities and Local
Government needs to be more responsive to the local authorities
facing particular funding pressures. This is particularly relevant
on the subject of the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children Leaving
Care Costs Grant. Since the publication of the Comprehensive Spending
Review and associated documents from the Government there is in
fact no reference to this grant continuing beyond 31 March 2008.
Should there be no assurances received from Government prior to
the council setting its budget in late February, then it will
have no choice (as determined by the outcome of the Judicial Review
brought by the council against the DfES) but to remove £3
million from its budget plans/raise council tax (1% = £1
million) to cover this shortfall or a combination of both.
6.2 The funding regime should be managed
by one Government department to promote consistency and coherence
in order to avoid the conflict that currently exists between the
Home Office and Department for Children, Schools and Families
(DCSF).
6.3 It is vital that the Government reassesses
the way that funding is allocated for unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children. Funding for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should
be needs based rather than per capita to ensure costs are recoverable.
6.4 Better funding arrangements need to
be drawn up for asylum seekers who have exhausted all appeals
on their asylum applications and the Home Office needs to be more
effective in deportation.
6.5 The Government should urgently share
data between departments and use local data sets or local research
in order to produce quality population estimates. It is vitally
important that population projections are accurate as they play
such an important part in managing service delivery. In addition,
settlements should not be finalised for 2009-10 and 2010-11 until
borough level estimates of short-term migration are available
and integrated into population estimates.
6.6 There should be separate funding arrangements
in place for local authorities that have large "points of
entry" to deal the unique challenges associated with this.
| 
