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 forty-two 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 Hillingdon contributes greatly to the
economic success of the capital and yet does not receive a fair
proportion of the re-distribution of that wealth. The borough
only receives £69 million on business rate redistribution
and yet it contributes approximately £246 million. This is
very low in comparison to other areas. Birmingham generates £320
million in business rates and receives £500 million back
from the pool. Businesses in Manchester, Leeds and Westminster
generate £250 million of income but get back more than £500
million. Government proposals to introduce a supplementary business
rate will not be available to London boroughs. If they were, we
would have considerable leverage to manage Heathrow pressures.
1.3 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. Due to its proximity to
the world's busiest international airport, Hillingdon faces some
unique challenges relating to the costs of migration and caring
for asylum seekers and economic migrants recently arrived in 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.
1.4 The London Borough of Hillingdon is
ideally placed to contribute to this enquiry by demonstrating
the economic and social impacts of recent migration to the borough.
We are able to demonstrate how increased migration has affected
public services and the public finances of the London Borough
of Hillingdon. Moreover, through looking at Hillingdon, the committee
might gain valuable insight into the effects of migration on a
limited geographical area and how improvements in migration data
might help alleviate some of these problems.
2. Summary of issues
2.1 Due to the proximity of Heathrow Airport,
Hillingdon faces unique challenges relating to containing such
a large "point of entry" to the UK. These relate to
the changing demographics of the borough and subsequent pressures
on public services. In addition, the London Borough of Hillingdon
statutorily acts as the "corporate parent" for an increasing
number of unaccompanied asylum seeker children (UASC) that come
to the UK through Heathrow Airport. Further problems arise when
these young people leave care or become asylum seekers who have
"exhausted all appeals". Whilst Hillingdon meets its
obligations under the Leaving Care Act, unlike other authorities
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 £4.8 million
a year whereas, for Croydon (which is the gateway for Gatwick
Airport) the shortfall is likely to be around £0.8 million.
2.2 The demographics of Hillingdon have
changed considerably in recent years. Whilst Heathrow has meant
that Hillingdon has always been home to people from across the
world, more recent developments such as when citizens of eight
Central and Eastern Europe countries gained the right to work
in the UK, and air travel becoming more accessible for greater
numbers of people, changes in population demography and numbers
have accelerated.
2.3 Being the home to the national airport
makes it self evident that we differ from other London boroughs
as regards to the effect of unaccompanied asylum seeker children
locally. Social services at Hillingdon council receive dozens
of calls a week from the airport authorities asking them to collect
unaccompanied children. Hillingdon is responsible for providing
services for over 1,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—including
accommodation, schooling and disability support.
2.4 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.
2.5 The London Borough of Hillingdon also
provides for over 100 individuals who have exhausted all appeals
on their asylum applications and according to the Home Office
have no right to remain in the UK. Again we are statutorily required
to provide housing and other forms of support for these individuals
but without any assistance at all from central government. This
costs Hillingdon between £1m and £1.5 million a year.
2.6 It is important that the issues of economic
migration and asylum, and the impact that this has on a geographical
area economically and in terms of the strain on public services,
are not treated in isolation. In Hillingdon's experience they
have grown in unison, and should be part of wider plan in supporting
areas of the UK that disproportionately feel these effects.
3. A Changing Population
3.1 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—but
integration requires appropriate funding and accurate planning.
This integration reputation however is now at risk because of
lack of appropriate funding support from central government.
3.2 Much like other areas of the UK, Hillingdon
has seen an increase in migration from the eight Central and Eastern
Europe countries when their citizens gained the right to work
in the UK after they attained membership of the European Union.
3.3 The level of settlement is perhaps unique
for an outer London Borough as much of the focus of Central and
Eastern Europe migration has been on inner London Boroughs. This
can be attributed to location of Heathrow Airport, the favourable
local economy, and our proximity to Slough which has also seen
considerable migration.
4. Population estimates
4.1 The 2001 census put Hillingdon's population
at 243,006—which was 8,600 more than in 1991. This represents
a growth of 3.7%.
4.2 On 24 April 2007 the Office of National
Statistics (ONS) issued details of changes to the methodology
it uses to calculate estimates of international migrants at both
regional and local authority level. These changes have been applied
to the mid year population estimates for 2006 and to revised population
estimates for 2002 to 2005. These changes to population estimates
in turn impact on the revised 2004 Sub-National Population Projections
(released on 27 September 2007) likely to be used in the Revenue
Support Grant (RSG) Settlements for 2008-09 to 2010-11.
4.3 The original mid year estimate for Hillingdon's
population in 2005 was 252,400 (which we believe to be an underestimate).
Instead of continuing the previous upward trend in population,
the new ONS methodology has stated that Hillingdon's population
stands at 4,500 fewer.
4.4 The London Borough of Hillingdon is
actively disputing these estimates and projections and their use
in calculating the local government funding formulae. It is inconceivable
that at a time of record migration to the UK, the local authority
containing the largest point of entry to the UK is experiencing
such a limited increase in population.
4.5 The changes in this methodology only
deal with the redistribution of a fixed quantum of international
migrants at national level, based on estimates from the International
Passenger Survey (IPS). There are good reasons to believe that
these estimates are unsatisfactory. There are a range of concerns
about the robustness of the IPS—particularly its small sample
size and possible inadequate sampling of modes of entry, which
would appear to be particularly important for recent international
migrants to London.
4.6 Most importantly of all, the ONS do
not currently count short-term migrants (those here less than
a year) in population estimates, and this is why the impact of
A8 and A2 accession is not being picked up in the ONS population
estimates, and why Hillingdon is unlikely to get the funding needed
to cover the additional costs that are arising as a result, under
current funding methodologies.
4.7 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.
5. Public Services
5.1 It is vitally important that population
projections are accurate as they play such an important part in
managing service delivery.
5.2 Like any residents, new migrants will
also create demands for local services. In fact, the pressures
on many local services can often be much greater where there is
a significant churn in population or where the local population
is increasing.
5.3 Many new migrants experience multiple
levels of deprivation and that the associated casework is likely
to require additional assistance, over and above a typical resident,
due to their complex needs
5.4 Unpredictable and uneven demands on
services caused by demands at Heathrow create considerable problems
for strategic planning in social care services. This creates challenges
in meeting external performance indicators and thus affects the
Council's CPA score. Social services become liable for those British
subjects entering via Heathrow who have no connections elsewhere
and are not eligible for benefits because they fail the "habitual
residence" test. Where children are involved or the adults
are particularly vulnerable social services are statutorily responsible
for supporting the family or individual including housing needs.
Adult services will be required to support adult asylum seekers
who are disabled and cannot be dispersed via the National Asylum
Support Service programme.
5.5 Immigration also has a major impact
on the council's housing policy and strategy. This applies both
to unaccompanied asylum seekers and in particular, families. The
most recent example is the announcement of an amnesty by the borders
and immigration authority. This will place a requirement on the
council to house around 200 families, which not only impacts on
the council's budget but also the supply of local housing in the
borough. This will also directly lead to the council not meeting
its homelessness targets. In terms of the wider local housing
markets, even those families that the council is not required
to support are "chasing" the same accommodation that
the local authority is trying to use to meet its housing targets.
6. Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children
6.1 Before 2004-05, local authorities supporting
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.
6.2 In October of 2005 and January of 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.
6.3 Hillingdon is responsible for providing
services for over 1,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—including
accommodation, schooling and disability support.
6.4 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.
6.5 In effect, Hillingdon is being punished
for efficiently carrying out the Government's own policies on
providing for asylum seeker care leavers. The costs of providing
services under care leaving responsibilities in 2006-07 are 24%
of the national cost (falling on one authority).
6.6 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. Funding arrangements
make no account for these increased pressures.
7. Exhausted All Appeal Asylum Seekers
7.1 Hillingdon also currently provides for
100 asylum care leavers who are not eligible for specific grants
from either the DFES or the Home Office because the young people
concerned have exhausted all appeals on their asylum applications.
Hillingdon have a statutory obligation to provide these services.
7.2 However, the Home Office have failed
to deport them, and the Government has failed to take responsibility
for remedying this situation—this costs Hillingdon between
£1m and £1.5 million a year.
7.3 The Home Office actually contacted council
officers in Hillingdon back in September last year explaining
that they did not know where these exhausted all appeal asylum
seekers were, and asked for a full list of names and addresses.
7.4 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.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The impact of these ongoing funding
pressures could mean that Hillingdon has no choice but to raise
council tax again next year or cut other services. Much of the
money which has been used to plug the shortfalls caused by new
funding rules for asylum seeker care leavers, was set aside for
other services.
8.2 As an authority with growing spending
needs driven by the growth and scale of demographic change in
the borough, the increases in Department for Communities and Local
Government formula grant that their funding formulae suggest we
should receive are not being passed onto the London Borough of
Hillingdon. This is due to our above average formula grant increase
being "scaled back" to pay for "floor" increases
for other authorities. The level of scaling back is severe—69%
of our additional grant increase equivalent to over £2.6
million in the 2007-08 settlement, and this further exacerbates
the extraordinary funding pressures we face as a result of the
location of Heathrow Airport in the borough.
8.3 If Hillingdon were to receive inadequate
RSG Settlements for 2008/09 to 2010-11 on the basis of flawed
methodology, this will also detrimentally impact our ability to
provide first-rate services and will inevitably mean a considerable
council tax increase.
8.4 As new migrants often require more complex
and considerable levels of support from the local authorities,
funding shortfalls will severely impact our ability to provide
these support services and retain the borough's admirable record
of successfully integrating new arrivals within the community.
9. Key Recommendations
9.1 The small sample size surveys in the
IPS designed for capture other information are not suitable for
use in improving migration estimates. The Statistics Commission
has informed government for four years of the need to share existing
and new administrative data between all departments. Government
should urgently share data between departments and to use local
data sets or local research to quality assure population estimates.
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.
9.2 The Government is not recognising the
concerns of local authorities and is passing on all accountability
to the Office of National Statistics. The Department for Communities
and Local Government need to be more responsive to the needs of
local authorities facing particular funding pressures.
9.3 This is particularly relevant on the
subject of the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children Leaving Care
Costs Grant where Ministers have consistently refused to meet
with representatives from Hillingdon to discuss these issues.
The grant at £100 per week remains inadequate to address
the needs.
9.4 Funding for UASC should be needs based
rather than per capita to ensure costs are recoverable. Funding
regime should be managed by one Government department to promote
consistency and coherence and avoid the conflict in regimes that
exists between the Home Office and Department for Children and
Learning.
9.5 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.
28 September 2007
| 
