Agenda item

Brendan Morrow explained that the report set out the support the Council provided for Refugees, Asylum Seekers and those with no recourse to public funds.

Those who had been granted refugee status were entitled to work, and claim benefits and access social housing in the same way as British citizens.

Those who were claiming Asylum were provided with accomodation and subsistance payments by the National Asylum Support Service; this support continued until their application had been determined and the Council were not usually involved in this support.

The Home Office sometimes granted leave for people to remain but with no recourse to public funds. This meant that they could not claim benefits or receive help with housing in the normal way. Children and vulnerable adults did however have rights to some assistance through Social Services legislation such as the Care Act 2014 and the Children Act 1989; this was because of the Council’s safeguarding duties. Where Adults or Children’s Services accepted that the Council had a duty to provide assistance they would ask the Housing Solutions service to provide suitable accomodation and provide subsistence payments. Housing Solutions would place those entitled to this type of assistance in private rented accomodation which would be funded from through budgets delegated by Adults and Children’s Services.

Mr Morrow explained that the team which provided the No Recourse to Public Funds Service was currently undergoing a review, with a view to closer working with Adults and Childrens Services. The Council had also got access to a system called Connect which allowed officers to see immigration information and liaise with a dedicated home office team.

Councillor Fennimore said that this was a very complex area involving lots of technical legislation which many people struggled to understand. She said that she felt it was important that where the Council had a duty to support people it did this well and praised the work of officers who ensured that Hammersmith and Fulham did this. Councillor Homan added that Councillor Fennimore had taken a personal interest in this area and her work had led to improvements in the service. She noted the good work of Housing Options staff in sourcing accomodation and helping residents.

The Chair asked what the impact of the removal of the provision enabling asylum seeking families with children to remain supported until they left the UK would be. Brendan Morrow explained that the change would mean that more families who had not left the UK but whose applications for asylum had been rejected would need to be supported by the Council owing to its safeguarding duty to the family’s children.

Councillor Phibbs said that the system seemed very confusing and would benefit from being clearer and easier for the public to understand. He said that he felt it was wrong that Asylum Seekers were not allowed to work whilst their claims were being processed.

Councillor Phibbs asked whether there was any incentive to the Council to reduce the costs of providing services to those with no recourse to public funds. Brendan Morrow said that the Council had a statutory duty to support those with No Recourse to Public Funds who qualify for the provision of accommodation & subsistence and that this service had to be met from existing budgets. Funding for accommodation and subsistence costs was set by Adults and Children’s Services. These budgets were managed by Housing solutions which sought best value for money in sourcing competitively priced accommodation.

Councillor Phibbs asked why accomodation which was not self-contained could not be offered to refugees being resettled by the council via the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme. Councillor Fennimore explained that the Home Office required self-contained properties to be offered, noting that this policy was controlled by the Conservative UK Government. Fawad Bhatti explained that the Home Office’s explanation for this policy was that refugees needed to have sustainable long term accomodation leading to independence and self-sufficiency, which lodging did not provide. He also said that there was a higher risk of the ‘live in’ landlord and refugee tenant relationship breaking down compared to self-contained accommodation. Fawad Bhatti added that the Home Office had also specifically asked if we can accommodate larger family units with children. He noted that to his knowledge all of the 7,000 Syrian refugees who had been helped so far had been offered self-contained accomodation. Councillor Phibbs asked that the Council write to the Home Office to request a change in their guidance to allow people the choice of shared accomodation which he felt would allow more people to be helped and might allow some people to integrate more easily. Councillor Homan said that she did not share Councillor Phibbs confidence that there would be residents willing to share their homes with refugee families in the long term.

Councillor Phibbs asked how many Syrian refugees the Council had housed, noting that Camden had managed to accommodate many more families. Councillor Fennimore explained that we would have around 19 / 20 people in the near future via the Syrian and the Vulnerable Children’s schemes with more in the pipeline. She said that earlier on Camden had benefitted from very philanthropic landlords enabling them to take a number of families quickly. She noted that Refugees Welcome had been working hard to encourage Hammersmith and Fulham’s landlords to do the same as well as encouraging local residents to support refugees.