Home Affairs Committee

This is a joint submission on behalf of the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Children’s Service, and the No Recourse to Public Funds Network.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS)

ADCS is the national leadership organisation in England for directors of children’s services appointed under the provisions of the Children Act 2004 and for other children’s services professionals in leadership roles. The statutory role of Director of Children’s Services (DCS) was created by the Children Act 2004 to establish a single point of leadership and accountability for services for children and young people.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is the representative voice of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. Our work reflects our commitment to promote the position of local government as the sphere of governance closest to the people of Scotland, while our political decision making process is designed to ensure that our member councils are at the heart of our policy development. In this way, COSLA seeks to respond quickly to events and set a forward looking agenda for local government.

COSLA also hosts the Strategic Migration Partnership for Scotland (CSMP). It works across the spheres of government in Scotland, and with other key stakeholders, to ensure that Scotland is a welcoming place for new migrants. The political chair of the CSMP Board attends the LGA’s Asylum, Refugee and Migration Task Group. As a result of the different legal frameworks for Housing, Social Work and Children’s Services, the specific legislation in Scotland often differs from that referred to in this submission. Similarly, the changes to legal aid do not affect Scotland. However, COSLA and CSMP support the principles behind the points being made.

The Local Government Association

The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government in England. We work with councils to support, promote and improve local government. We are a politically-led, cross party organisation which works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems. The LGA covers every part of England, supporting local government as the most efficient and accountable part of the public sector. The Local Government Association (LGA) hosts an Asylum, Refugee and Migration Task Group. This is the only member-led Group, made up of representatives from all of the UK, which focuses upon the issues relevant to the local government sector. A key principle of our working relationship with government is the recognition that these are national issues.

Northern Ireland Local Government Association

The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) who hosts the secretariat for the Northern Ireland Strategic Migration Partnership (NISMP) welcomes the joint paper to the Committee, while there are significant statuary differences to the application of regional asylum services, we acknowledge the concerns highlighted by our colleagues.

NRPF Network

The NRPF Network is a network of local authorities and other organisations focusing on the statutory response to people with care needs who have no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The Network, established in 2006, aims to share information and good practice amongst local authorities, work with government departments to raise practical and policy issues and to develop a strategic response to NRPF. There are over 2,800 members of the NRPF Network representing local authorities, the voluntary sector, central government, the police and the NHS. The NRPF Network runs an information and guidance enquiry line, provides training to local authorities, researches the scale and nature of social services support to people with NRPF, works with government departments on a number of policy concerns and provides information on developments in case law, policy and good practice.

Welsh Local Government Association

The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) represents the 22 local authorities in Wales, the three national park authorities and three fire and rescue authorities are associate members. It seeks to provide representation for local authorities within an emerging policy framework that satisfies the key priorities of our members and delivers a broad range of services that add value to Welsh Local Government and the communities they serve. The WLGA also hosts the Wales Migration Partnership, funded by Welsh Government (Inclusion Grant) and the UK Border Agency (Enabling Grant) which is a partnership organisation aimed at providing an ‘enabling function’ and a strategic leadership, independent, advisory and consultative body on migration in Wales.’ This allows sharing of expertise, diverse range of views and vital information minimising adverse impacts and maximising the benefits of migration.

Introduction

This joint submission focuses on the key issues that affect local government in the asylum system and our response therefore addresses questions set by the Committee on support for asylum seekers and the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum seekers. We also discuss a number of related issues; including former looked after children leaving care who become Appeal Rights Exhausted, issues around legal aid and COMPASS contracts for support of asylum seekers. Please note, NRFP Network has also submitted its own additional evidence alongside this joint response.

Summary

1.1 Asylum is a national issue and as such, costs should be met by central government and not fall on local authorities. By continuing to provide a Section 4 Support package that does not reflect the needs of this group of vulnerable people nor the timescale realities of removal, the Home Office will continue to place a significant cost burden upon local government with no apparent prospect of reimbursement.

1.2 People in receipt of asylum support need to be better informed of their options when claims for asylum are refused. It should be part of a beginning-to-end process that sees those with valid claims being awarded leave expediently and those who are not leaving the UK.

1.3 Local authorities are concerned by the number of failed asylum seekers who are not removed and are left without support at the end of the asylum process. Beyond the remit of social services accommodation and subsistence provision, there is a broader impact on communities coping with the destitution and hardship faced by this population.

1.4 We are also concerned about the issue of former looked after children leaving care who become Appeal Rights Exhausted. Local government has had to provide support for the children, young people and families in the context of legislative tension and changes, lack of returns and lack of funding.

1.5 In addition, Local Government is concerned about the cost implications of removing legal aid for immigration cases in England and Wales and the financial burden this will place upon councils. We believe that children supported by local authorities should have been excluded from the removal of legal aid for immigration cases.

1.6 Local authorities have some concerns about the new COMPASS contracts for the accommodation and support of asylum seekers. Unfortunately, there is already evidence of asylum seekers being placed in substandard accommodation in areas without the infrastructure to cope. It is crucial that all partners work together to ensure that the best possible accommodation and services are provided for asylum seekers.

2. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements?

2.1 Section 4 Support provides basic accommodation and subsistence support for a group of extremely vulnerable men, women and children who have reached the end of a difficult asylum application process and who have received a negative decision.

2.2 The reality for many of this group is that it is unlikely that they can be returned home quickly. In the majority of cases this is through no fault of their own. The primary principle of support should therefore be the support of vulnerable people, rather than asylum and immigration control. The asylum support system should be geared towards deciding applications in a fair and timely manner.

2.3 Local authorities are often placed in the position of having to support those with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) indefinitely whilst receiving no reimbursement for the costs they incur for providing this support. Any removal of support from those whose asylum application is unsuccessful may therefore result in a transfer of cost pressures to local authority budgets. This would occur as a result of the statutory obligation on local authorities to support those with no recourse to public funds. NRPF Network research has shown that at least £46.5 million is spent by local authorities on the NRPF client group each year. The number of cases nationally is increasing and is around 4,000 to 7,000 cases nationally. Asylum is a national issue and as such, costs should be met by central government and not fall on local authorities.

2.4 We understand that the amount of support available for those on Section 4 is intended to act as a deterrent and incentive to return home. However, the current system provides an additional cost to the taxpayer in relation to the administration of a voucher system. This additional cost could be removed if the process was simplified and the relevant section of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999, which precludes Section 4 support from being provided in cash, was repealed.

2.5 We believe that the provision of Section 4 support should follow the requirements of provision similar to those expected of local government under Section 17 and Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, which expressly excludes local government from limiting services due to cash shortages. We believe that this group of unsuccessful asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable and require assessment and provision of a wide range of services to promote their well-being that go beyond the current and proposed scope of these regulations.

2.6 This is particularly important to those individuals to whom Section 4 support may well be long term (over a six month period). The Courts are insisting that local government has a residual duty to support people and enable their Human Rights to be met, regardless of their asylum or immigration status. By continuing to provide a Section 4 support package that does not reflect the need of this group of vulnerable people, nor the timescale realities of removal, the Home Office will continue to place a significant cost burden upon local government with no prospect of reimbursement. There is also a related issue of whether the extremely low subsistence rates for children on Section 4 support (£35 per week) are at odds with the UKBA’s Section 55 duties to safeguard children.

2.7 We would also encourage the efficient development of advice service capacity and mobility at the point of need rather than supporting the current need of service users to travel significant distances to access advice.

3. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers

3.1 Asylum seekers also are more likely to become destitute when moving from one type of support to another, again impacting on local authority budgets and creating pressure on communities. In addition, continuing what would be in effect two separate support systems may not, “provide best value for taxpayers money,” as resources will be needed to transfer clients from one support type to another. It could be more cost efficient to keep clients on the same support system until the UK Border Agency (UKBA) concludes their case and instead focus resources on interventions that would assist them to return.

3.2 A more effective approach, both in terms of cost and eventual outcome could be the development of a whole-system, stakeholder approach, rather than separate mechanisms of support provided towards the end of the process.

3.3 Local authorities are concerned by the number of failed asylum seekers who are not removed and are left without support at the end of the asylum process. This generates referrals to social services departments for financial assistance where there are people with assessed health needs that require support under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.590 It can also include families who require financial assistance where children have been born after an all appeal rights exhausted date of an asylum claim.

3.4 Beyond the remit of social services accommodation and subsistence provision to failed asylum seekers eligible for support under governing legislation, there is a broader impact on communities coping with the destitution and hardship faced by this population.

3.5 Local authorities and community groups are often required to provide information and guidance on options from voluntary return to seeking legal advice, work that is not taken on by the UKBA. Low voluntary return rates are in part due to a lack of engagement with asylum seekers whilst on asylum support. We therefore believe more support should be given by the UKBA to people in receipt of asylum support so they are better informed of their options when a claim for asylum is refused. This should not be a last minute consideration as explained on termination letters; this should be part of a beginning to end process. This process should see those with valid claims being awarded leave expediently and those who are not instead leaving the UK.

3.6 UKBA specifically have a duty to ensure returns actually occur. It also needs to ensure that local authority-supported cases are prioritised in the same way as those on asylum support and to ensure timely decisions and notification, so local authorities are not carrying the costs as a result of delays or inaction.

3.7 The family returns initiative is a good example of where statutory and voluntary agencies can work together to bring about returns, whilst ensuring that the safeguarding needs of children are met.

3.8 For cases granted leave to remain, the UKBA should ensure that proper assistance is provided to those requiring welfare support as a step before gaining employment. An arbitrary timescale of 28 days before UKBA asylum accommodation is withdrawn heightens the risk of refugees being left destitute and without support. This is of particular concern in relation to cases where there are children. The UKBA’s Section 55 safeguarding duties should require the agency to be satisfied that the Department of Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs are ready to provide appropriate mainstream benefits to a family before their asylum support is terminated in order to avoid the homelessness and destitution currently caused by administrative delays.

4. Additional issues—former looked after children leaving care who become Appeal Rights Exhausted

4.1 The issue of former looked after children leaving care who become Appeal Rights Exhausted is an on-going issue in local government. Local government is committed to ensuring the protection and support of vulnerable children. However, it has had to provide support for these children, young people and families in the context of legislative tension and changes, lack of returns and lack of funding.

4.2 Local Government has been lobbying on this issue since the Hillingdon judgement in 2003 which established local authorities’ duties, particularly with regards to securing more effective grant funding. Repeated judicial reviews have upheld that councils do not have discretion to terminate support for former unaccompanied minors so long as they remain in the UK. The government funding available for this cohort does not truly reflect the costs to local authorities of the support provided.

4.3 In addition, many authorities believe that there is an unclear legislative position with regards to the balance between their leaving care duties and asylum legislation with regards to this group.

4.4 However, the commitment to meet and go beyond statutory duties can be seen in many local authorities continuing to provide full support at a cost to themselves. This is despite the Government’s position, as reflected in their grant funding, that support can be withdrawn in certain cases.

4.5 Until this legislative tension is resolved and/or the funding situation rectified, then decisions on the support entitlement of the young people in question involve a number of policy and resource considerations that must continue to be a matter for local discretion.

4.6 Future discussions with government on this issue need to be framed in the context of the duty now placed on UKBA to maintain the safeguarding and welfare needs of children, reflecting local authorities own duties.

4.7 However, discussions on this issue also need to recognise that returns may be an outcome of the process. An enforced return is rarely in the interests of the young person or child and so all those involved have a responsibility to discuss alternatives, such as the Assisted Voluntary Return scheme.

5. Legal aid

5.1 We are clear that local authorities are committed to ensuring the support and protection of vulnerable children. Local government therefore is concerned about the cost implications resulting from provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This Act makes provision for removing legal aid for immigration cases and the financial burden this will place upon councils.

5.2 We believe that children supported by local authorities should have been excluded from the removal of legal aid for immigration cases.

5.3 Based on Legal Services Commission’s data for the 2009–10 closed cases, the Government has calculated that around 6,000 children under 18 (or 15% of the current case volume for this age group worth £10 million in costs) will be out of scope for receiving legal aid in civil cases. In addition, 69,000 young people aged 18 to 24 (or 56% of the current case volume for this age group worth £40 million in costs) will not be eligible for legal aid if the proposed changes go through (Parliamentary Question on 20 July 2011).

5.4 Of particular concern to local government are the provisions that will remove legal aid from immigration cases (with some exemptions), which will particularly affect unaccompanied children and children facing removal from the UK along with a parent, or separation from a parent by reason of that parent’s removal.

5.5 The wish to ensure that children receive the best advice possible results from local authorities’ statutory duties to provide for the welfare and wellbeing of children and in their role as the statutory parent.

5.6 We remain concerned about the financial burden changes in the recent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will place upon councils if they have to purchase legal services from private firms at what will be higher rates than under legal aid. The wish to ensure that children receive the best advice possible results from local authorities’ statutory duties to provide for the welfare and wellbeing of children and in their role as the statutory parent.

5.7 We also are concerned that the Government has underestimated the number of children in the care of local authorities with non-asylum immigration problems and thus the impact the changes may have on authorities.

5.8 Transferring responsibility to councils in this manner, without consideration of the funding implications and at a time when they are already processing reductions in funding for children’s services, will place resources under considerable pressure. This will have a particularly detrimental impact on the most vulnerable children who make up the largest portion of children placed in emergency or short-term care. We believe that decisions on spend and priorities must be decided locally, in the context of using reduced resources effectively to support all children in local authorities’ care.

5.9 It should not be necessary for councils to have to shift resources away from other front line services in order to offset a decision made by central government to reduce legal aid costs. Any such additional costs for local authorities should be fully funded under the new burdens procedure.

6. COMPASS contracts for the accommodation and support of asylum seekers

6.1 The COMPASS Project was set up by UKBA to replace the previous contractual arrangements for the provision of accommodation and related support services for asylum seekers.

6.2 Local government and central government do want the same things out of the new contracts—good quality provision, well managed by the new providers, in a way that doesn’t impact adversely on existing communities. Local authorities in some parts of the country have some concerns about the new COMPASS contracts for the accommodation and support of asylum seekers.

6.3 The heart of these concerns is about the strategic role that local government plays in relation to its local communities. To manage this service well requires a strong relationship between central government, local government and the provider, and one in which it is totally clear what each party’s role and responsibilities are and which extends beyond contractual requirements to include impacts upon local communities and services, whilst recognising that appropriate consideration be given to regional differences and their impact on the delivery and monitoring of services.

6.3 There is significant concern that the bidding process that was utilised in the awarding of the contracts drove the value of the contracts down to such a level that the quality of service will suffer as a result. Indeed, there are questions as to whether the contracts will provide adequate funding for the providers to be able to deliver sustainably and responsibly over the lifetime of the contracts. If they do not, there is a danger that asylum seekers will increasingly be dispersed to less affluent areas where the demand for statutory services is already at breaking point.

6.4 Unfortunately, there is already evidence of asylum seekers being placed in substandard accommodation in areas without the infrastructure to cope. As a result, the community cohesion issues that had perhaps been mitigated under the previous contractual arrangements are beginning to re-emerge in the context of COMPASS, while pressure is also being placed on statutory service providers and the third sector, without any additional resources from central government to support this work. Clearly one consideration will be whether new dispersal areas can be opened up to avoid further clustering of asylum seekers in already deprived and under-resourced areas. However, this will obviously be subject to the agreement of the local authorities concerned.

6.5 Bearing this in mind, it is crucial that all partners—central government, local government, other statutory service providers, the third sector, and the contractors—work together to ensure that the best possible accommodation and services are provided for asylum seekers. This must also be done in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on existing communities.

6.6 Thus far, local authorities have played a significant role in managing relationships in the regions/countries and assisting the new providers, both at an operational and strategic level and, in this way, have mitigated some of the issues that might otherwise have arisen under COMPASS. Concerns remain regarding the long term sustainability of the project and the impact that the emphasis on driving down costs will have on the quality of service provision for asylum seekers and, indeed, on the communities where they are placed. It is important that local government maintains an on-going dialogue with central government in relation to COMPASS.

Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Children’s Service, and the No Recourse to Public Funds Network

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013