Agenda item

The Scrutiny & Overview Committee is asked to review and comment on the support provided by the council to displaced people in the borough including those supported under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, adults and families seeking asylum placed in the borough by the Home Office and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

It is also asked note the work underway to quantify the additional financial strain placed on the council as a result of the rapid increase in the placements of asylum-seeking adults and children in the borough by the Home Office.

The Committee considered a report set out on pages 5 to 16 of the agenda which provided an overview of the support provided by the Council to asylum seekers, those seeking refuge under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The report had been included on the agenda to provide the Committee with an understanding of the support provided by the Council.

The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Maria Gatland, Corporate Director for Children, Young People & Education, Debbie Jones, Director of Quality, Commissioning & Procurement, Kerry Crichlow, Public Health Programme Manager, Jason D’Silva-Williams, the Operations Director from Clearsprings Ready Homes, Tina Rea, Service Delivery Lead from the Home Office, Chris Hennigan and Ian McMeeken, a host for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, were in attendance at the meeting for this item.

Before the Committee commenced its questioning of the information provided, the Chair put on record the thanks of the Committee for the clearly written, informative report.

The initial focus of the Committee was on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the first question asking what would happen if a placement did not work and how the risk of homelessness was mitigated against. In response it was confirmed that the Council was not involved in the original matching of guests from Ukraine with hosts, but when they arrived in Croydon the Council had to make sure the housing needs were appropriate. If there was a breakdown in the relationship between guests and their host, the Government maintained a list of others who had expressed an interest in acting as a host. Although the Council did not have the ability to create a matching service locally, it did try to keep the networks alive in the borough. The Council also worked with other boroughs to find suitable opportunities.

Regarding mitigating against the risk of homelessness, it was advised that there was little the Council could do to mitigate against the risk of a breakdown in the relationship between a guest and their host. Schemes to help people move on to their own accomodation in the private rental sector were being looked at, but this could be a challenge without references and was also linked to the provision of universal credit support from the Government.

In response to a question about whether more could be done to signpost the support available for Ukrainians in London, it was acknowledged that the team were conscious of the need to put out information on the Council’s website as it became available. It was agreed that the frequently asked questions of the website would be reviewed to ensure there was sufficient advice on managing breakdowns and the provision of new opportunities.

It was questioned whether there was support available for Ukrainians who did not arrive in the country via the Homes for Ukraine scheme. It was explained that there were three different visa routes and there had been instances where people had thought they were included in the Homes for Ukraine scheme but were not entitled to the support available under that scheme because they used a different visa route.

It was highlighted that the Government was reducing the grant funding available to councils for supporting new arrivals from £10,500 to £5900 per person and that it would be supplemented by a new £500m scheme to support the acquisition of new housing stock and topping up the Homelessness Prevention Grant. As such further information was requested on the new scheme and the potential impact it may have on the borough, particularly from other local authorities looking to house people in Croydon. It was advised that since the new scheme had first been announced in December, no further information had been forthcoming and until this detail was available it was not possible to provide a definitive answer. The Committee agreed that it would like to be updated on the scheme once this information was available.

It was questioned whether there had been a significant increase in workload for the safeguarding teams from new arrivals and how this was being managed. It was advised that safeguarding had been flagged as a risk early on, so team had worked with families to gain assurance that there were no safeguarding issues. There had been significant lobbying, both politically by the Mayor and through officers, to flag the addition strain placed upon the already stretched system.

Regarding the support available to help Ukrainians arriving in the borough to find employment, it was advised that the Council worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and Croydon Works to find both education and employment opportunities. People were also encouraged to actively engage with the range of services on offer.

Michael McMeekan attended the meeting to provide his own insight as a host under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. This highlighted the issue that local schools did not seem to be aware of the funding available to support children placed in their schools after arriving in the borough under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. In response, it was advised that the Council had been required to go through a long process to match up each child and their location. This was then followed by a second process to filter all the Ukrainians in schools to identify which are eligible for the scheme. This work had now been completed and payment would be provided in February 2023.

The discussion moved on to asylum seeking adults and families placed in Croydon, with the Vice-Chair providing feedback on a visit with the Chair to a hotel in the north of the borough used as initial accomodation for asylum seekers while their claims are processed. During this report, the following was noted: -

·         The hotel opened as accommodation for asylum seekers in September 2021.

·         The hotel tried to place single women near the reception so they felt safer.

·         Following reports about the behaviour of security guards towards residents, Clearspring Ready Homes had replaced the original contractor with a different security contractor.

·         Food was prepared for the residents by an external catering company. It was heard that the previous catering company had supplied food that was unappetising for the residents, with a lot of waste and many left hungry. An anecdotal example was given of a pregnant resident becoming malnourished to such an extent that her labour was induced.

·         Each resident was provided with £8.24 on pre-paid cards each week for living expenses and as expenses were not provided for residents travelling 3 miles or less, they tended to walk everywhere. Although schoolchildren could get free travel, this could be problematic for parents who needed to accompany children to and from school.

·         One resident family reported accumulating several issues over a nine month period, including a mouse and mould behind a wardrobe, but having complained about these on a single occasion were moved.

·         The hotel rooms were designed for occupation by visitors for a limited period, typically guests on holiday or on business, rather than by families for an open-ended period (the current longest resident occupants had been at the hotel for 14 months).

·         The rooms did not have sufficient space for larger items such as buggies or bikes, although there was a common area near reception where the buggies could be stored, and bikes could be stored outside.

·         There was concern about the use of underground rooms as accomodation for any length of time given the lack of natural light and the cramped living conditions in these rooms.

·         There was no external on-site amenity space for children, as the only open space was the car park at the front of the hotel. However, there was a park nearby that was used by residents.

·         The two key issues raised by the visit were the fact that these hotels were not designed for long-term occupation, and that the length of stay was the result of the time taken by the Home Office to process asylum seeking applications.

Following this summary, the Committee continued to question the information provided in the report. The next question asked whether there was an issue with missing children in the accomodation provided by Clearsprings Ready Homes and whether the front of house staff were trained to deal with vulnerable children. It was outlined that the hotel procurement was engaged on a back to back contract basis and although Clearsprings provided retained an overview, the contractors were expected to provide services to the agreed specification. Very few children went missing and when case had occurred it was often the case of the child being lost and then quickly found again. When any child was identified as missing it would be reported to the safeguarding team and the Home Office Safeguarding Hub as a priority. Clearsprings had a high profile notification system in place which required accommodation providers to report on a range of different issues from low level maintenance problems to more serious concerns. Fourteen courses were provided on a range of issues including one on handling the cases of vulnerable children and people. The sub-contractors were required to evidence where staff had received training, which was tested by Clearspring to verify.

It was questioned how the issue raised on the behaviour of former security staff had been handled. It was advised that the incident had been addressed as soon as Clearsprings had been notified. This included the security team being removed from the site and the contract. It was acknowledged that there was sometimes a breakdown in reporting such as when service users did not want to make a formal report.

It was highlighted that residents could log any concerns 24 hours a day via the Migrant Help service, which was a Home Office contractor engaged for issue resolution. Once an issue was logged, the accommodation providers had to report on the issue and meet contracted time scales to rectify.

There was concern raised about the level of service provided by Migrant Help, with anecdotal feedback indicating that it could be difficult to contact the service. It was acknowledged that feedback had been received from service users on the challenges of contacting Migrant Help. Waiting times had come down, but there were still issues to be addressed. There were a series of key performance indicators that were mostly met by the provider which were scrutinised monthly by a Contract Management Group.

As the report highlighted that representatives from the Home Office and Clearsprings had not always attend the monthly monitoring and the monthly safeguarding meetings, this was raised as a concern. It was acknowledged that there had been instances where they had not been able to attend forums and it was hoped that apologies had been forthcoming. The Committee agreed that given the vulnerability of the residents it was important that the partners make every effort to attend these meetings

It was acknowledged that the use of windowless rooms was not acceptable and it was confirmed there was an intention to reduce the usage of these rooms for longer term accomodation, but this was dependent on the level of capacity available within the system to move residents to more suitable rooms.

There was also concern raised about having a mixed cohort sharing the accomodation with both single men accommodated in the same hotel as women and families. This was recognised as an issue, and the Home Office looked for as much separation as possible, with some hotels allocated specifically for single men, families, or single females respectively. However, at present, capacity across the estate was at a premium which resulted in a mixed cohort. The Committee suggested that in these instances steps should be taken to provide as much separation as possible within the accomodation.

In response to a question about engagement with ward councillors, it was advised that there was a series of multi-agency forums in the areas where asylum seekers are housed, which ward councillors were often welcomed to attend. If councillors had a concern about a specific site, these should be raised directly with officers. The Committee agreed that it would be useful to formally invite ward councillors to the multi-agency forum meetings.

Further information on the healthcare support available for residents was requested. It was advised that residents were able to access local GPs, but this presented its own issues as local GP services could become overwhelmed.  This had resulted in a focus on priorities areas, such as pregnant women, young mothers, children, and adults with pre-existing conditions. It was acknowledged that health partners were not able to provide the level of care they would like to be able to due to the stretch in the system. Another issue for residents was having to travel to access healthcare, as if it was under three miles, they had to make own way, which could be a challenge. The Committee agreed that this may be an area for the Health & Social Care Sub-Committee to investigate in further detail.

Given there was a surplus of places in Croydon schools, it was questioned why there was an issue with children accessing education. It was explained that the main issues related to children aged 15 to 16 in Key Stage 4. As the curriculum for this age group was set at the start of the year, it could present a challenge for a child entering mid-year. The Education team were looking at creative opportunities and hoped to have a solution in place shortly.  The Committee agreed that this may be an issue for the Children & Young People Sub-Committee to investigate in further details.

At the conclusion of this item the Chair thanked those present for their attendance at the meeting and their engagement with the questions of the Committee.

Actions arising from the meeting

Following the discussion of the Asylum Seeker item at the meeting, the Committee agreed the following actions that would be followed up after the meeting.

1. That a response is sent to the Home Office and Clearsprings Ready Homes to advise of: -
   1. The Committee’s concern about the potential risk of having a mixed cohort sharing initial accomodation and would recommend that every effort is made to ensure that in the first instance hotels are allocated to a specific cohort and if not possible due to capacity issues that all options are explored for providing clear separation to safeguard potentially vulnerable people and children.
   2. The concern raised from anecdotal feedback about the level of service provided by Migrant Help and request that this is investigated and a response provided to the Committee on the outcome.
   3. A request for local Ward Councillors to be formally invited to the multi-agency forum meetings on a regular basis.
2. That a further report is provided, when appropriate, for the Scrutiny & Overview Committee on the full implications of the new scheme introduced by the Government to cover reduced funding under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. This report should also include an assessment of the risks from other council’s housing people in borough when they moved on from the Homes for Ukraine scheme,as well as the extra pressures on an already overly stretched private rented sector, and the work to mitigate this risk.
3. It was agreed that the Children & Young People Sub-Committee would schedule in its work programme a report on the support available for children arriving in the borough on asylum schemes, particularly for those who were not in full-time education. This will include making sure there is proper access to education, particularly KS4 where the Council has sometimes struggled to find school places for children.  This will include follow up work to make sure that schools are being properly funded for taking in Ukrainian refugees as per national government support schemes.
4. It was agreed that the Health & Social Care Sub-Committee would schedule in its work programme a report on the healthcare support for asylum seekers staying in the borough, given concerns raised about the lack of provision in the report.

Conclusions

Following its discussion of the Asylum Seeker report, the Scrutiny & Overview Committee reached the following conclusions: -

1.    The Committee welcomed the quality of the report provided for its meeting and thanked officers for all their work in supporting those staying in the borough under asylum schemes.

2.    The Committee agreed that the delay in processing asylum applications which resulted in people staying for months in hotels not intended for long term habitation was putting unsustainable and unacceptable pressure on vulnerable people and impacting upon the Council’s resources.

3.    The Committee put on record their disappointment that representatives from the partners involved had missed the monthly monitoring and monthly safeguarding meetings, given their importance in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the people staying in the initial accomodation across the borough.

4.    It was disappointing that Government guidance on the new funding arrangements for the Homes for Ukraine scheme had not yet been provided to Council officers despite being announced in December 2022 as they do not currently know how the new funding will work or if it will be sufficient. There is a real risk of increased homelessness if this is not properly planned and provided for.

5.    The Committee welcomed confirmation that the Mayor was picking up many of the concerns raised at the meeting with the Home Office and other partners.

6.    The Committee agreed that that the Council webpage for the Homes for Ukraine scheme needed to be regularly updated with signposting to other support for Ukrainians and wider networks.