Agenda item

[To consider a presentation on Home Office Asylum Policy]. 

The Chair stated that the Home Office Asylum Policy item had been requested by the Vice-Chair of Scrutiny Board.  The presentation was to provide information and clarity on the Home Office Asylum process for any individual arriving in the UK claiming refugee status.  It also provided details of current Government policy and the steps taken by Wolverhampton Council to influence it.  A copy of the presentation, is attached to the signed minutes. 

Government policy was based on the Immigration Asylum Act 1999 and Asylum Support Regulations 2000.  The UK had a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with temporary accommodation, transportation and money whilst the application was considered.  A person or persons could claim asylum in the UK if they feared persecution from their home country and they had failed to get protection from authorities within their country.  Persecution had to be because of the following reasons:-

·       Race or religion

·       Nationality

·       Political Opinion

·       Anything else that put a person at risk because of social, cultural,  religious or political situation in a person’s home country.

The Director of Public Health stated that not every asylum seeker would ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee was initially an asylum seeker.  Those entering on resettlement schemes had different rights.  There were a number of different resettlement schemes including Ukraine, Afghan relocation, other resettlement schemes (such as Hong Kong) and Asylum seekers outside of these schemes. 

The Director of Public Health reported that Serco held the Asylum Accommodation and Support Service Contract with Central Government and covered the West and East Midlands, the Northwest and parts of the East of England.  Serco provided Housing Officers who supported Asylum seekers within hotels and dispersed accommodation, to signpost a range of services, such as GP registration, education, social prescribing and translation.  Migrant Help were the Central Government’s contracted provider under the Advice, Issue Reporting and Eligibility Contract and provided advice and assistance to people seeking asylum in understanding the asylum support system, across the UK.  He presented a flow chart showing the arrival routes and the process following arrival.

The Chief Operating Officer commented that the challenges Wolverhampton had faced were the same as many other Local Authorities when it came to asylum seekers.  The Council, along with many other Local Authorities and the Local Government Association had been engaging with the Home Office for many years to try and improve the way it carried out asylum policy.  In September 2021, after the Home Office had not made any changes to the dispersal policy, 7 Local Authorities led by City of Wolverhampton Council, had commenced a Judicial Review of the Home Office’s previous approach to the dispersal of asylum seekers.  There were two key areas that the Judicial Review focused on:-

·       A fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the Country.

·       A fairer funding settlement for those areas that had asylum seekers to ensure that they had the support they needed without unfunded burden on those authorities. 

The Home Office’s previous position was that it would only place dispersed asylum seekers in voluntary areas.  This was Local Authority areas that had at some historical point agreed to take asylum seekers.  The seven Local Authorities withdrew their voluntary consent in 2021.  The Home Office refused to accept the withdrawal, which was the reason for the Judicial Review proceedings commencing.  The Judicial Review took place between September 2021 and May 2022 and led to the Home Office changing its policy.  Every Local Authority area was now classed as a dispersal area. They had also agreed to put in place additional funding for the 2022/2023 financial year in respect of those asylum seekers dispersed into each area.  The Council and other Local Authorities were seeking evidence to demonstrate the commitments made by the Home Office to the High Court were being met. 

The Chief Operating Officer remarked that implementation by the Home Office of the changes to the policy of dispersal was still taking place and therefore a definitive position could not be stated.  Critically Serco were engaging with all West Midlands Local authorities to procure against the Full Dispersal Plan.  The Government was currently proposing changes to the current system through a new Migration Bill. 

The Chief Operating Officer stated that as of December 2022 there were over 100,000 asylum seekers in the UK.  Wolverhampton currently housed 350 individuals in initial accommodation (Hotels) under section 98.  820 individuals were in dispersed accommodation under section 95 or section 4.  There were a high amount of asylum applications in the UK currently, the applications were managed by the Home Office.  Discussion and engagement with the Home Office were critical when placing asylum seekers in Wolverhampton. 

The Vice-Chair asked if the Council could do more to challenge the Home Office.  He made reference to a case in Great Yarmouth, England.  The High Court Judge had granted an interim injunction to block the Home Office from using Hotels to house Asylum seekers, due a policy which didn’t permit a change in use of hotels.   He questioned whether any new hotels built in Wolverhampton could have such a policy.  In Dudley, a hotel had been planned to house asylum seekers, but opposition from residents and politicians had led to the plan being shelved. 

The Chief Operating Officer responded that there had been a number of cases brought by Local Authorities to try and prevent the use of hotels for asylum seekers based on planning policy.   With the exception of Great Yarmouth, which was only a temporary injunction at present, they had all failed.  The case in Great Yarmouth was still to go to full trial.  He was aware of cases where the use of hotels for asylum seeks had been dissuaded by informal means and this had happened in different parts of the country.  There had also been some cases where the hotel operator had not reached an agreement with Serco and therefore the hotel had not been used for asylum seekers.  The Council had engaged with the Home Office on a regular basis.

The Director of Public Health referred to the importance of hotels complying with the specifications from the Home Office.  They had found in the past that there had been a disconnect with the management of the contract from the Home Office and the delivery of the contract by Serco.  Much partnership work had taken place in Wolverhampton to set the operations with Serco.  This had led to real benefits. 

A Member referred to the European picture and historical aspect of accepting asylum seekers.

The Board at 9:25pm unanimously resolved to extend the meeting by up to 30 minutes in line with the requirement in the Council’s Constitution.  

A Board Member commended the work of Officers and in particular the work they had done with the Home Office. 

A Board Member referred to the pressure on local services and the difficulties this could bring in the community, it was important for the Home Office to understand the pressures.  She understood that 300 properties were being used by Serco in the City, which added a further pressure to Wolverhampton residents who were seeking housing.  Whilst it was important to be welcoming

and hospitable, dispersal policy was important. 

A Board Member asked about the impact assessments that had taken place at a local level and whether this was factored into any financial support the Council received.  He asked if the Council knew the costs for looking after asylum seekers in the City.  Nationally and regionally, the City were amongst the highest for receiving asylum seekers.  The system needed to be fair and the Council needed to defend its position. 

The Director of Public Health responded that it was hard to quantify the absolute costs.  Partnership working helped to manage the risk of impact on services.  Preventative measures helped to prevent some long term costs. He cited health screening as an example, which initially Serco had not done. 

A Board Member commented that he hoped regular contact with Serco would continue.  The Director of Public Health assured the Board that regular contact was being made.     

The meeting closed at 9:40pm.