To follow on 8 March due to pre-election rules on publicity.
Decision:
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
Minutes:
Witnesses
James Lee, Director of
Communities Partnerships and Leisure
Katya Griffin, Borough of Sanctuary Manager
Key points from discussion
The witnesses introduced the report. Key points raised included:
3.1. The Borough of Sanctuary Programme aimed to ensure the Council and its partners provided a high standard of support to sanctuary seekers, not to prioritise them above other groups.
The meeting adjourned from 7.19 pm to 7.24 pm.
3.2. The Committee’s previous meeting, at which it had been joined by voluntary sector partners, had led to a collaborative, borough-wide partnership approach.
3.3. The Council had resettled 127 refugee households (the most of any London borough), supported 650 Ukrainian nationals, heavily invested in immigration advice for people designated as No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), delivered bespoke employability support to Ukrainian and other sanctuary seekers, conducted coproduction work to strengthen the voice of sanctuary seekers, provided wraparound support including complex casework, introduced move-on and mental health support and community building.
3.4. All GP surgeries had signed the Safe Surgeries pledge. South East London Integrated Care System staff had worked with GP surgeries to ensure they were fulfilling their Safe Surgery commitment to not require identification from service users and the Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network had conducted secret shopper exercises to test consistency.
3.5. The Asylum and Refugee Partnership, including the Council, Integrated Care System, voluntary sector partners, the Home Office, Clearsprings Ready Homes, and asylum hotel management, enabled close partnership working and accountability.
3.6. The Borough of Sanctuary Strategy Group enabled approximately 50 staff from across the Council to convene to solve problems, share good practice and monitor progress against the Priorities and Outcomes Framework.
The Committee put questions to the witnesses. Key points raised included:
3.7. The decision on the Council’s reaccreditation by City of Sanctuary was scheduled for 25 March.
3.8. Immigration advice was mainly provided by Southwark Law Centre.
3.9. Clearsprings Ready Homes and its contracted partners were quite accepting when there were issues. However, they often did not deliver on the commitments they made in response to issues. The Council was persistent in ensuring Clearsprings and its partners delivered what they said they would while making clear it genuinely wanted to work in partnership and appreciated their operational challenges.
3.10. The Council’s work was helped by the pan-London asylum working group as many of the issues affecting Lewisham were not unique to the borough. For example, Clearsprings required safeguarding referrals by accommodation staff to be made through Clearsprings’ own process, but, after a year of work, a position had been arrived at whereby local referrals would be made concurrently.
3.11. Councillors could support the sanctuary movement by being involved and engaged in ward-level work, such as housing applications, and would be welcome at the Lewisham Migration Forum – where the Council met with its Borough of Sanctuary partners.
3.12. An online learning module and lunch and learns for all council staff were to be launched in April.
3.13. Initially, the Council’s Borough of Sanctuary approach was largely a political campaign. Since its focus had turned more to embedding sanctuary principles and delivering specific outcomes in the Council, the high-profile campaigning element was somewhat diminished. Whether that element was missed by partners was to be considered.
3.14. A system had been introduced to enable voluntary sector partners to provide feedback on the housing support provided by the Council. The difficulty of providing compassionate support while facing significant challenges and pressures was acknowledged.
3.15. Potential barriers to the success of the Programme included local authority funding, limited human resources, the housing crisis, and national policy changes and government actions requiring reactive responses detracting from proactive work to implement the Strategy.
3.16. The decant of an asylum hotel in the borough previously had caused significant upheaval and trauma for those involved. There was now only one hotel being used for asylum accommodation in the borough, likely in part due to the limited number of hotels.
3.17. Few single asylum seekers, who were low priority for housing, were accommodated in Lewisham, unlike other London boroughs, meaning it avoided the challenges of supporting high numbers of single people leaving asylum accommodation.
3.18. The Council did not have any role in determining and could not control who was placed or resettled in the borough.
3.19. Of people designated NRPF, 80 per cent were of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicities and 50 per cent were Black.
3.20. It had been reported that sanctuary seekers were being charged for doctors’ letters. Action for Refugees in Lewisham (AFRIL) was advising its service users to request copies of their personal data held by GP surgeries, which was often a sufficient substitute for a formal letter.
3.21. All Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) in Lewisham were in the care of the Council; none were accommodated in hotels. There were some historic, but no recent, cases of UASC going missing from hotels and the Council’s care.
3.22. The Council’s Licensing Team had inspected, and the multi-agency forum conducted a safeguarding visit to, Lewisham’s asylum hotel. Lewisham’s accommodation was of a reasonable standard for hotel accommodation, and offered cooking facilities, the lack of which drove the majority of complaints regarding the other, now closed, hotel accommodation in Lewisham. The Licensing Team was satisfied with the standard of accommodation.
3.23. Sometimes refugees chose not to access the Home Office’s system of move-on support. Issues arose when people chose not to access that system. The Council had an arrangement with the hotel’s management under which vulnerable families were referred to a voluntary sector partner for support. The support and quality of accommodation received by homeless refugee families was the same as for any homeless family.
3.24. Due to the limited number of single asylum seekers accommodated in Lewisham, few were sleeping rough after leaving their hotel accommodation. For single refugees and other refugees without priority need for housing, the Council’s voluntary sector partners worked with Refugees at Home to provide home stays and the Council had procured a property, introduced an emergency payment system and was considering providing supported accommodation.
3.25. Officers were working with Homes for Ukraine families to prevent homelessness – Lewisham was doing well compared to pan-London data.
3.26. The Director was to discuss how political campaigning could support the Borough of Sanctuary programme with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Refugees and Community Safety.
ACTIONS
1. Borough of Sanctuary Manager to raise the issue of GP surgeries charging for doctors’ letters with Doctors of the World.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: