Agenda item

Henry St-Clair Miller (Manager, NRPF Network) spoke to the Committee and highlighted the following key points:

·         The NRPF Network looks at the implications of NRPF for local government and aims to influence local and central government on this issue.

·         The NRPF Network works with the Home Office on NRPF Connect, a database that collates information on NRPF cases including costs, case types, immigration status and the status of children. This information is shared with local government and the Home Office.

·         28 local authorities are using NRPF Connect, which represents a significant proportion of the NRPF caseload.

·         The NRPF Network is hosted by Islington Council. Islington had a high asylum population at the end of the 1990s and kept their asylum team to assist with adults with health needs. It then evolved to deal with NRPF. The NRPF Network is supported through commission based training, as well as some other sources of funding. Lewisham is part of the NRPF Network.

·         The NRPF Network also maintains is a collective dataset that provides evidence of trends on immigration policy.

·         The aim is to provide evidence on the true situation with NRPF and draw them into partnership.

·         Leaving people with NRPF in limbo with no decision on their immigration status isn’t good and represents a significant cost burden for the local authority. The NRPF Network wants to help tackle decision making beyond local authority control, such as leave to remain and removals.

·         The NRPF Network has been working the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) over the caseload burden assessment.

·         The NRPF Steering Group monitors the effectiveness of NRPF approaches.

In response to questions from the Committee, Henry St.Clair-Miller provided the following information:

·         There are a number of factors behind the increase in NRPF, including the economic downturn as well as the shift from asylum to managed immigration with associated issues not being picked up.

·         Because the UK does not carry out ‘amnesties’ for large numbers of people who have been in the UK for a long time, many people have been in the country for a long time without having a firm decision or action taken over their status.

·         The Home Office is currently pursuing a policy approach of creating a harsher environment for those in the country illegally, such as restricting access to driving licenses and bank accounts. The aim is that this harsh environment will force people to leave the country as their lives will not be sustainable. From a Home Office perspective this will reduce the need for costly deportations and discourage future migrants.

·         However, if this approach does not work there could be an increase in NRPF referrals coming through to local authorities. This could be particularly challenging given the strong responsibilities for local authorities on providing support for children.

·         Lewisham has taken a stringent approach to NRPF which based on data based and uses evidence.

·         A good approach to NRPF is about having the right people to deal with it, which is not necessarily the social care front end.

·         Arguing with the Home Office about funding is difficult as they are resistant to providing funding, especially as social services are local authority responsibilities. Therefore a strong evidence base is needed, which NRPF Network aims to provide with NRPF Connect.

·         The issue of fraud is important and as guardians of public money steps must be taken to prevent fraud. However there is little evidence of extensive fraud amongst NRPF claimants in the datasets. Local authorities need to be careful about talking about fraud, so they do not stigmatise the client group.

·         NRPF Connect aims to provide a solid evidence base, with data to enable them to negotiate with the Home Office on the issue of NRPF and also to hold them to account on their performance.

·         One of the recommendations to central government has been around not rechecking the status of families. The Home Office often questions the initial assessment of NRPF families even though they are rigorously done, meaning that checks have to be carried out again which causes delays. The recommendation was to take the local authority’s word on it.

·         There are a high proportion of Jamaican and Nigerian NRPF claimants, which matches Lewisham’s population and would explain the high numbers in Lewisham. For Islington the cost issue comes from expensive private sector housing.

·         The understanding of NRPF has increased recently. This is partly because of tightened budgets which has emphasised the critical nature of the issue and brought to the fore.

·         There are referrals to Adult Social Care around NRPF, but the majority of cases are families.

·         Many NRPF cases involve people that have been in the country for a very long time, which strengthens the case for regularising their stay.

·         The key to management of NRPF is early identification, thorough assessment and then active management of cases.

·         The NRPF Network is getting to a critical mass where it is gathering a lot of information and evidfence. There will be 35 local authorities involved by the end of the 2014/15, including major authorities outside London such as Manchester.

·         However, other local authorities do not always have the staffing resource to support data collection around NRPF, while others such as Birmingham have carried a review looking at NRPF but are not involved in the NRPF Network.

·         There will be different issues for different members of the NRPF Network, for some it might be EEA migrants or asylum related, rather than visa overstayers which is more typical in London.

Jon Rowney (Strategic Lead: Finance, Performance & Procurement, London Councils) spoke to the Committee and highlighted the following key points:

·         London Councils are responding to concerns from local authorities across London on the issue of NRPF.

·         At the start of 2014 the DCLG and Home Office took part in a round table discussion, which included service and finance pressures as well as caseload and demand, including the need to secure additional funding for local authorities. The DCLG and Home Office challenged back on the costs, highlighting the need to reduce costs and processes.

·         London Councils is looking at how local authorities and the Home Office can work together, including clarifying roles and responsibilities and looking at best practice for service delivery.

·         Local authorities need to put the case for costs being faced and justify any extra funding, with more work required on this.

·         The NRPF Steering Group discusses strategic issues and some of the operational issues.

·         London Council’s role is facilitating increased understanding on the issue of NRPF. They can apply pressure to the DCLG and Home Office via the steering group and talk about future questions about how and where to apply political pressure. For example, London Councils have been speaking to the LGA about how to lobby and influence on this issue.

·         The evidence base around NRPF is not as strong as it could be and the DCLG have looked at the evidence base around NRPF as an extra burden on local authorities and felt that more evidence is needed, especially around the overall national picture on NRPF.

·         London Councils is currently developing a new burden template to identify key issues that local authorities need to look at.

·         After 2015 there is likely to be a review of spending, with the potential to address local government funding. Therefore we need an evidence base to support any political decisions and negotiations that take place.

·         The lack of resolution on leave to remain is a key aggravating factor around NRPF. Data from Compass, who have been working on the Eurocities project, highlights that systems are not working well. There is also a backlog on asylum applications which is not likely to be cleared as the Home Office believes the hostile environment approach will drive people away.

Justine Roberts (Change and Innovation Manager) then highlighted the following information:

·         Lewisham is keen to keep working with the NRPF Network and is putting data into the NRPF Connect database.

·         Funding from the DCLG has been for joint service delivery involving other boroughs in South east London. This is a positive step.

·         Lewisham recently carried out a ‘Policy School’ on NRPF with the Cabinet Office, which is another way of talking about NRPF and raising its profile.

The Committee then discussed the following points:

·         The concern about what will happen if the hostile environment approach doesn’t work, as this would not relieve the burden on local authorities and could increase it.

·         Local authorities have been effective at tackling service delivery while incurring huge cuts in funding. This means that central government is happy to then pass on cuts knowing that local authorities will manage effectively.

·         The pessimism that local authorities will get funding for NRPF, as the suspicion is that central government will always ask for more evidence.