Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee
Oral evidence: Ukraine Refugee Schemes, HC 464
Monday 16 January 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 16 January 2023.
Members present: Mr Clive Betts (Chair); Bob Blackman, Mrs Natalie Elphicke; Ben Everitt; Kate Hollern; Paul Holmes; Andrew Lewer; Mary Robinson; Nadia Whittome; Mohammad Yasin.
Home Affairs Committee member also present: Dame Diana Johnson.
Questions 75 - 186
Witnesses
I: Felicity Buchan MP; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Housing and Homelessness), Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Faith and Communities), Emma Payne, Director, Homes for Ukraine Scheme, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Witnesses: Felicity Buchan MP, Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE and Emma Payne.
Chair: Welcome, everyone, to this afternoon’s session of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee. This afternoon, we have a one-off session to look at support for Ukrainian refugees. We are going to talk with Ministers responsible for that area in just a minute. Before we start, I will ask members of the Committee to put on record any interests they may have that may be particularly relevant to this inquiry. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Mohammad Yasin: I am a member of Bedford Town Deal Board.
Dame Diana Johnson: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association as well.
Kate Hollern: I employ a councillor in my office.
Mrs Elphicke: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Paul Holmes: There are none for me.
Ben Everitt: I am a vice-president and employ a councillor.
Mary Robinson: I employ a councillor in my office team.
Q75 Chair: Coming on to the important people this afternoon, welcome to Ministers and officials. Could I ask you to introduce yourselves?
Felicity Buchan: I am the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, with responsibility for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I would just like to put on the record, before we start, the tremendous work that was done by my predecessor in the role, Lord Harrington.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I am Baroness Scott of Bybrook. I am the Lords Minister in DLUHC. I am responsible for faith and communities, but also social housing. I have a small role in the Ukrainian scheme, and that is to spend time engaging with the Ukrainian communities.
Emma Payne: I am Emma Payne. I am director for the Homes for Ukraine programme in DLUHC.
Q76 Chair: We do not normally comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of Ministers, but we appreciated Lord Harrington’s engagement with the Committee when he came to see us on more than one occasion. He paid a visit to Sheffield as well to look at what was happening on the ground there, which we appreciated.
I will begin with the slightly unusual situation that we have with Ukrainian refugees. There are two schemes that are run completely separately. They are run by different Departments. I had a commitment, going back to Prime Minister’s questions, when I asked the last Prime Minister but one—I think it was on 6 July—if he would agree that the two schemes should be merged to the point that people who come over on the family scheme could transfer on to the homes scheme to prevent them from becoming homeless. He said yes, that the Government were going to do that. Perhaps Ministers do not want to be bound by what the Prime Minister at the time said, but, perhaps more in tune with current thinking, the current Secretary of State reiterated on 21 November to the Committee that the Government were committed to aligning the schemes. Why has it changed? The last letter from you, Minister, indicated that there were no such plans.
Felicity Buchan: Let me go back to the history. The Ukraine family scheme was put in at short notice. As you say, it is a Home Office scheme. That was so that we could allow into the country the extended families of Ukrainians. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is separate. That was very much to allow people who had no family connection in the UK to come over. Because there is no family connection with Homes for Ukraine, we have put in place local authority funding and also the “thank you” payments. There was always an anticipation with the Ukraine family scheme that families would help and support their relatives.
In terms of where we stand today, we do not plan to amalgamate the two schemes. We see them as being separate. I know that you have written to me, Chair, about a few specific instances where people have wanted to transfer between schemes, but the reality is that the vast majority of people on the family scheme are well settled in this country. I would just make the point that the two schemes are identical in terms of the length of permission to stay, entitlements to work and access to public funds.
Just to update you on the numbers, Homes for Ukraine currently has 111,000 arrivals. The family scheme has 44,500 arrivals.
Q77 Chair: What has changed, Minister? I appreciate how the schemes began. They were rapid responses to a very rapidly changing and deteriorating situation in Ukraine, but the commitments from the Prime Minister in July and from the Secretary of State in November were considered commitments after the schemes had been running for a time. Then, suddenly, in December, you or someone else in Government decided not to go ahead with the merging together or at least trying to make some of the differences disappear between the schemes. Why?
Felicity Buchan: It is a decision that we have made not to amalgamate.
Q78 Chair: Why the change?
Felicity Buchan: I cannot talk on behalf of a previous Prime Minister.
Q79 Chair: But the current Secretary of State—
Felicity Buchan: Our current policy is that these are separate schemes.
Q80 Chair: Why did the Secretary of State tell us in November that there was going to be a coming together of the two schemes?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, these schemes have an awful lot in common, but they are distinct.
Q81 Chair: It is a bit difficult to see the bits in common. We will come on to some of the differences. You mentioned that most people on the family scheme are settled. The reason why we raise concerns as a Committee is that, yes, many are settled with families, but sometimes those relationships break down. Sometimes the families do not have a big enough home to house all the family members who come. The alternative to allowing them to transfer to the homes scheme, where there are people in the area willing to take them into their home, is that they end up as homeless. How can it be right to have people who fled the appalling situation in Ukraine ending up as homeless, if there are people in their area who will welcome them into their home under the homes scheme?
Felicity Buchan: I make a couple of points on that. The first is that there is nothing to prevent a local authority from matching people. There will not be Government support, but there is nothing to prevent them. I would say that local authorities owe a homeless duty, so that will always be the case. Government are also making £150 million available across the UK, including in the devolved Administrations. If anyone is at risk of homelessness, regardless of which scheme they are on, local authorities will have that £150 million of funding.
Q82 Chair: We will come back to that, but it seems, Minister, that you have just developed a third scheme. We have the homes scheme, where people are recompensed, quite rightly, with “thank you” payments, which will be increased after a year—we will come on to that in a minute. You have the family scheme, where people who receive their family members do not get specific help themselves. We are now going to have a scheme where family members can be transferred by local authorities to people who have registered to go on the homes scheme, but, if they take people on that basis, because they have previously been on the family scheme, they will not get any support themselves. That is the third scheme.
Felicity Buchan: I would not say it is a third scheme.
Q83 Chair: What about two and a half?
Felicity Buchan: No, there are two schemes here. As I say, we are encouraging local authorities to be innovative in their approach, and we have seen that with local authorities. Some have been giving additional top-up payments. We very much think that local authorities know their individual areas best. Clearly, local authorities receive a tariff per Ukrainian, so we want to empower local authorities. I completely agree with you that, if a situation has failed, there does need to be homelessness support, but that is already there in the current system.
Q84 Chair: That is always more expensive, is it not, than allowing a family to transfer from the family scheme to the home support scheme?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, the vast majority of people here are settled.
Q85 Chair: There are hundreds on the family scheme who are not, who have presented as homeless already.
Felicity Buchan: Let me give you the numbers in terms of homelessness. At the moment, there are 3,172 households, of which 1,727 is Homes for Ukraine, so just over half of the total amount.
Chair: We will pursue the homelessness question in a bit more detail now, but there is certainly a change of policy there, Minister, and I do not think that the Government have been as helpful as they might be to try to deal with the situation.
Q86 Mrs Elphicke: I just want to dig down into a bit more of that, if I may, Minister. Looking at the homelessness statistics that we have to June 2022, the Committee will be quite relieved to see a relatively small increase in the homelessness statistics in December in relation to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, following our session with you before, Minister. Just looking at that issue, at the moment it is 1,210 people out of about 44,500 on the Ukraine family scheme, compared to over 1,700 out of 111,000 on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which means that there is a significantly higher percentage of homelessness in the Ukraine family scheme. I just want to explore that a little further with you, because I agree with our Chair, Mr Betts, that we have, do we not, an unsatisfactory position in relation to those coming in on the Ukraine family scheme who need to present as homeless?
Felicity Buchan: That is precisely why we have this £150 million fund, which will be distributed throughout the UK. I should also say that, in addition, we have another £500 million fund, and that is to buy up approximately 4,000 homes for those fleeing war. We have said that 500 of those homes will be for Afghans. Initially, they will be available for Ukrainians. Once the Ukrainians go back to Ukraine, those will become part of local authority housing stock for the benefit of the entire population.
Q87 Mrs Elphicke: Just looking at the local authority position in relation to the Ukrainian people who are being hosted, Dover district is an area that is very generous and has really stepped up and done some very good and generous work in relation to hosting. About 239 Ukrainians are hosted. At the moment, there are more host families than there are people to be hosted in them.
Dover District Council has no information on the family scheme housing numbers, yet we have just seen the proportion of people who may be required to be housed. One particular area I am aware of that has been problematic in that regard is the inclusion of surrogacy within the family scheme rather than the Homes for Ukraine scheme. What assessment has the Department made of both the reasons and the type of family relationship that are contributing to the high levels of homelessness in the family scheme?
Felicity Buchan: As I said, the Home Office is responsible for the Ukrainian family scheme. I am afraid that I am not aware of the surrogacy issue in that scheme, but I am very happy to get back to you.
Emma Payne: We will take that away and get back to you.
Q88 Mrs Elphicke: Turning to the wider issue of support, by reason of its location, the Dover Outreach Centre is one of eight funded centres in the UK to support Ukrainian refugees and to make sure that they have a good community setting. That funding is coming to an end at the end of this financial year. Why is the Department not continuing funding for support for as long as people are in need during this conflict? What assessment has been made of the impact of withdrawing those eight regional centres of support?
Felicity Buchan: Clearly, this is a balancing act. We have these two new funds—the £150 million and the £500 million—instead of further tariff funding. It is a balancing act, and we are all aware of the pressures that the Treasury is under at the moment.
Q89 Mrs Elphicke: If I may move to the financial pots, including the two that you have mentioned, we have talked a little about the £150 million one, so to focus on the £500 million local authority funding pot, can I ask you a bit more about when the details of the fund will be published and what the design principle for it is? In particular, what percentage of capital funding will be available to local authorities? You just mentioned, Minister, that, beyond a particular period, housing would be available for the general population. Could you expand on that?
Felicity Buchan: Yes, absolutely. Let me just answer a few of those questions. We have already written to the chief executives of the local authorities in scope to outline their indicative allocations and to provide detail on the fund. It is 183 local authorities. We have determined how much, provisionally, each local authority will get by looking at the number of Ukrainians they have as a percentage of their population, at other homelessness pressures and at affordability issues. No one region will be able to get more than 25% of that pot.
What we are planning to do, once local authorities have confirmed that they want to participate in the fund and can use the money, is to publish the local authorities and the amount against the name.
Q90 Mrs Elphicke: Where is the money coming from?
Felicity Buchan: This is money that we have found from existing budgets, and it is only for England.
Q91 Mrs Elphicke: Is it the underspend in the affordable housing programme that you have been using for this, which we discussed at our previous session?
Felicity Buchan: It is coming from a number of different sources.
Q92 Mrs Elphicke: I wonder if perhaps we could have more information about where the funding is coming from, because I am particularly mindful that, in terms of the allocation of the funding—if I have understood the design principle, Minister—we have a number of people across England with priority housing needs. All of us will have areas with extreme pressures of domestic priority housing need. My understanding is that funding has been allocated to build or require homes for a specific housing need, but not for all priority housing needs at this time.
Felicity Buchan: The homes will initially be available to the two Afghan schemes—the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the ARAP scheme—and will be available to the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine extension scheme. As I say, once the Ukrainians return, it will become part of the general housing stock.
Q93 Mrs Elphicke: I have a final question on the homelessness statistics. We have the Ukraine family scheme, as we discussed, and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Those are the two principal schemes that we operate in the UK. Then there is this “other/not known” category. Why do we have an “other/not known” category when we have two schemes that apply to Ukrainians?
Felicity Buchan: I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that there is an unknown category.
Q94 Mrs Elphicke: There is an “other/not known” category where, as at the end of December, 240 homeless Ukrainian households are not in the Ukraine family scheme or the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Felicity Buchan: I do not have those numbers in front of me, but I can only think that would be the Ukraine extension scheme.
Q95 Mrs Elphicke: Could you just explain more about that?
Felicity Buchan: Those are people who had a limited period on visas for the UK, but we have extended those visas. They are people who were already in the UK but on a time-limited visa.
Q96 Mrs Elphicke: Back to the Chair’s question, we have not one, not two, but three schemes, and potentially a fourth scheme in terms of people who can be housed by local authorities but not funded by them. In relation to the Ukraine extension scheme, which funding structure applies? Is it none, as in the Ukraine family scheme, is it Homes for Ukraine funding, or is it something else?
Emma Payne: The Ukraine extension scheme relates to those people from Ukraine who are already in the UK, whether that be on student visas or other types of visas, and who have been able to extend their stay in the UK.
Q97 Mrs Elphicke: Do people who have had to remain in the UK by reason of the war get financial support?
Emma Payne: The support, as I understand it, is the same as they would have been receiving on the previous visa, but we can follow up with further information.
Q98 Chair: Why label it as “other”?
Felicity Buchan: I do not know. I do not have that document in front of me, but I am very happy to look into it.
Chair: It would be helpful to have that.
Q99 Dame Diana Johnson: I just want to ask a quick question about the 500 Afghan families who would be allocated. Why have you chosen 500? What is the evidence base for that?
Felicity Buchan: At the moment, we have just over 9,000 Afghans in bridging hotels. The average size of the families is approximately four to five people, so we felt as though 500 homes was a good starting point to really accelerate the Afghan resettlement. I feel very strongly that most Afghans have been with us since the summer before last, and we really need to get on with their resettlement as a matter of urgency.
Q100 Mohammad Yasin: What are you doing to support Ukrainian families out of temporary accommodation?
Felicity Buchan: There are very few Ukrainian families in temporary accommodation. I saw the numbers in November and it was 670 or so, but, clearly, local authorities are all working to get them into sustainable, long-term accommodation, as they do with other citizens. I know that from my own local authority.
Q101 Mohammad Yasin: What barriers are there to Ukrainians accessing the social rental sector? What are you doing to remove those barriers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook: We made changes to the eligibility rules right at the beginning of the scheme to ensure that any arrivals from Ukraine under one of the main schemes—we will argue about how many schemes there are—would be eligible for housing assistance from day one coming in. That is important, because local authorities are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people, such as those who are homeless or have medical or welfare needs, etc.
It was important that we made sure that those people who came in on the Ukrainian schemes had that housing assistance from day one. Social housing allocations will apply to everybody who is eligible, including those from Afghanistan and Ukraine. That is where we go back to the £500 million. It is really important that, where there are pressures in the system with certain local authorities, as we know, there is that money that they can use creatively, depending on what is happening in their area. They might buy housing off stock, because in certain areas of the country, there are new homes that are available but are not being sold, which are on stock; or it might be about doing up dilapidated buildings and using them; or it might be about looking at modern methods of construction and putting things up quickly.
That £500 million can be used creatively to help what is a pressure when you get this number of people possibly going to be homeless and needing the system. We need solutions quickly.
Q102 Mohammad Yasin: How many prospective sponsors are currently available to offer suitable homes both to new and existing guests? How does that number compare to demand?
Felicity Buchan: There is not one exact number. Clearly, with the Government portal, we have asked people to express interest, but people are also going through local authorities as well as charities and voluntary organisations, so there is not one magical number as to how many expressions of interest we have had. As a Government, we share the information with the upper-tier local authorities on everyone in their area who has expressed interest through the Government portal.
Q103 Mohammad Yasin: If we do not know supply and demand, how will they make a decision? How can we help them if you do not even know the demand and supply?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, I cannot give you an exact number, but we are very aware of trends that are happening. We have approximately 1,000 new arrivals per week. We are doing a lot to encourage new sponsors. That is one of the reasons why we extended the “thank you” payments but also said that, after 12 months, the “thank you” payment would go up. Just before Christmas, we wrote to everyone who has expressed interest, because we think that there is huge value in this scheme.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to make a general remark, which is that I thank everyone who has been a sponsor under this scheme. It really is a remarkable scheme: 111,000 people have come in on it. The compassion and the generosity of the British public has been phenomenal, so I would like to thank everyone. It just shows that not everything has to be Government-led. This was very devolved, giving a lot of authority to local areas. While the Committee certainly should be scrutinising this scheme, it has been a huge success.
We continue to look for new sponsors who can help with rematching. Clearly, people have now settled into areas. Their children are going to schools. They may have found work. While we may have interest across the country, it is also very important that we have new sponsors in certain areas where there is a mismatch of supply and demand, but local authorities are very on top of that.
Q104 Paul Holmes: Following on from Mr Yasin’s question on accessing social housing, Minister Scott outlined that she had announced some guidance for local authorities on the eligibility of people to take up social housing. My concern is that, on 5 December, when we met some of the Ukrainian visitors to our country who are on both of these schemes, one of the key issues that they brought up with us—particularly on accessing social housing—was the differing regulations in different local authorities. One person told us that, unless they have a family member who has lived in the local area for five-plus years, they do not get put on a waiting list. Another one said that she had to live in the area for three years before she would be considered.
Notwithstanding some of the other problems in accessing the private rented sector, which we will come to, what monitoring is the Department doing to make sure that local authorities are absolutely making sure that they provide social housing where humanly possible?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook: They should be, because, as I said, from day one, Ukrainians coming in on the two schemes should be eligible for housing assistance. Some local authorities do put their own eligibility criteria on top. For example, I know some where, if you come from the armed forces, you will get up, but that does not negate the local authorities having that top-level eligibility, which is about categories of homeless people. Most Ukrainian families who need a home will come to be homeless for one reason or another, whether they leave or whether they are at the end of their six months or whatever, or they have welfare or medical issues. Those come over and above the local issues. Those are national, and so there should not be those problems in local authorities.
It is important that we continue to give all the advice to our communities, particularly in their language, whether it be Ukrainian or Russian or whatever, because it is complex for somebody coming from another country to work their way through our processes—I hate to say “our bureaucracy”. Those things are important.
I have also seen some really good work being done in some of the hubs where Ukrainians go, where you can have people from the local council, from housing, from welfare, from DWP, from the charities and from the faith groups all working together to look at the issues that any particular individual or family has and to sort those out in that place, together, for those people. That often works as well as anything.
Yes, there is always work that we can do. There are always more things that we can do to make it easier and more accessible, but we are on the case with that.
Q105 Chair: Before we come on to the private sector, you said, Minister, that you could not give us a figure about the number of prospective sponsors who might be available. You just said that you wrote before Christmas to people who might be interested in making an offer. How many letters did you send out?
Felicity Buchan: Those are people who have registered through the Government portal, but, as I said, there are clearly other ways to do that.
Q106 Chair: How many are on the Government portal now?
Felicity Buchan: Is that public information?
Emma Payne: No, it is not. The number varies over time, because we have more and more people signing up, but we also regularly engage with people to say, “Are you still interested?” and it is at that point that some say no.
Q107 Chair: At this point, how many have signed up and have indicated that they are still interested?
Emma Payne: There is no single figure, because as well as the Government portal—
Chair: There has to be a figure. I am sorry.
Emma Payne: As well as the Government portal, local authorities keep their own lists. We work with a number of recognised providers and VCS organisations that also hold lists. There are a number of different ways of registering your interest to be a sponsor.
Q108 Chair: Add them up.
Felicity Buchan: Let me just come in on this point. That number is not in the public domain. Let me go back and see if we can put it into the public domain.
Q109 Chair: There is no reason why it should not be in the public domain, is there?
Felicity Buchan: I will come back.
Q110 Chair: You will give a commitment to look and try to get back to us with a figure.
Felicity Buchan: I will come back to the extent that it is possible to share it, yes.
Chair: At least we can have the figure from the Government portal, and then, if you can add on what you can from the others, that would be helpful.
Q111 Paul Holmes: As I mentioned, on 5 December, we had the privilege of meeting many people in these schemes, and I agree with you, Minister, that the schemes were set up very rapidly and have provided much needed accommodation for many people.
However, as was mentioned when talking about barriers to social housing, one of the biggest bits of feedback that they gave us was the problem in accessing private rented sector accommodation. That ranged from the size of deposits required from landlords; the length of tenancies that could be issued; the length of the term of the deposit; the lack of guarantor that they could secure, which landlords were requiring; some sponsors being asked whether they could guarantee, when we heard from sponsors who were not in a financial position to do so; and the bizarre system where housing allowance cannot be applied for until someone has a signed tenancy. Therefore, they are in a chicken-and-egg situation where they cannot access private housing.
Those are just some of the problems that we have heard about. What issues have you identified and what is the Department doing to try to smooth this process to get those people into the private sector?
Felicity Buchan: Clearly, the private rental sector has a huge amount of demand at the moment, for many different reasons. Let me, first of all, give you the ONS survey of guests: 17% of respondents were renting from a private landlord, 59% were still living with a sponsor, and 6% were renting from a council or housing association. I completely get that there have been issues with the private rental sector, but there are a lot of people who are happily renting in that sector.
We have encouraged local authorities really to get down to granular detail and to try to be as creative as possible to help support that transition. There are 10,500 year one tariffs, so I know that a lot of local authorities are helping with initial deposits. In some cases, they have been guarantors, so there is a lot of good work being done by local authorities.
We are also talking to the National Residential Landlords Association, which you know well, about what work they can do and, as you would expect, they are being very constructive.
Q112 Paul Holmes: Minister, you quite rightly outlined that many people are renting, and you outlined the statistics, but as I heard earlier, there are 695 families in temporary accommodation and 3,165 households who are homeless as of 30 December, so there is clearly still a problem. There is a breakdown for whatever reason and these people are in need of accommodation. You have helpfully outlined some of the innovative things that local councils are doing, including my council, but I just want to delve down into the housing benefit allowance and the chicken-and-egg situation.
Is it not ludicrous that anyone, not just Ukrainians, has to be in a situation where they provide a signed tenancy, where a landlord will not necessarily be willing to take that risk—because leasing a house is a risk to anybody—and where they cannot access the help, or even a helpful amount that they might be able to get to try to find a home before they can do so, therefore exacerbating and extending their problems? What is the Department doing to try to get that problem solved, not just for Ukrainians but for other people?
Felicity Buchan: I am very happy to look into that and come back to you.
Q113 Paul Holmes: Secondly, Minister Scott helpfully mentioned making forms and documents much more accessible in different languages, and she is absolutely right. I have a very simple question. The Prime Minister stated that the Government would be providing guidance in both Ukrainian and Russian to help households access the private rental sector. When will this be published and what key pieces of advice will it contain?
Felicity Buchan: It has already been published in both Russian and Ukrainian. I have not read the Russian or the Ukrainian.
Chair: We will move on to the help for hosts that has been welcomed but perhaps challenged, in terms of the amounts.
Q114 Ben Everitt: Before I get on to the support for hosts, I have a follow-up on Paul’s questions. You mentioned, Minister, that you are encouraging local authorities to be flexible and innovative in terms of finding housing post the initial schemes. I have a case in Milton Keynes involving a family of four Ukrainians, two of whom are disabled. It is causing havoc in terms of finding appropriate housing. Are there any examples of additional support that could be provided there, or, indeed, any examples of where local authorities have been innovative in this area? We could get some knowledge sharing going—a portal to share solutions—so that where there are interesting and unique cases like this, we can see if something might have been done in an innovative way somewhere else.
Felicity Buchan: As a Department, we definitely have a mentality that we like to share best practice around councils. I do not know if you want to talk to the detail on that.
Emma Payne: We are really keen to make sure that there are ways to share best practices and great, innovative practice happening right across the country. I am very happy to look at the particular circumstance that you described and see whether there is more that we can do to share information across councils on that basis.
Ben Everitt: It is not solved yet, but I would be grateful for your eyes on it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook: It is also for the Local Government Association—of which many of you are vice-presidents, as I was until they kicked me off—to pull in that best practice. That is why we have to work very closely with them, because a lot of these local authorities are being very creative in what they do and how they manage these situations. We just need to learn from them.
Q115 Ben Everitt: Yes, absolutely. The Minister mentioned earlier that not all problems can be solved by a centralised Government solution, so thank you for the offers.
Moving on to support for hosts, Minister Buchan, are you planning any additional support beyond the “thank you” payments for hosts?
Felicity Buchan: Local authorities provide support for hosts, and we would encourage hosts—and, indeed, Ukrainians who have issues—to call their local authority to see if there is a local solution. We did decide to increase “thank you” payments and to extend their life, and that has been well received in the sector.
This is important from a signalling perspective, because we are giving the signal that we are encouraging sponsors to extend. In a recent survey, only 10% of hosts said that they plan to end sponsorship after six months, so 90% were thinking very much about extending.
Q116 Ben Everitt: Beyond the financial payments, are there any plans for support for hosts relating to the mental health effects of hosting traumatised war refugees, who often come with some very harrowing experiences?
Emma Payne: We have published a range of guidance for hosts, and we have published and linked charities that are providing additional support for hosts on a range of issues, including those that you outline. Those contacts are in place. In addition, the tariff funding that is provided to local authorities can also be used for local support for hosts, and we are seeing some great examples from a lot of councils in that area.
Ben Everitt: That is discretionary, though, by council.
Emma Payne: Yes.
Q117 Ben Everitt: This Committee has heard that the cost of living crisis, or the cost of living escalation, is putting people off continuing their sponsoring. How many hosts do we expect to stay on as hosts as a result of the “thank you” payments, in particular, going up to £500 beyond 12 months?
Felicity Buchan: As I said, in the most recent ONS survey, only 10% said that they were thinking about cutting off the sponsorship, so there are pretty impressive numbers there.
Q118 Kate Hollern: It is interesting to hear the compliments being paid to local authorities and the great work that they are doing. However, there is a huge increase in the number of visas allocated. In fact, last month there have been an additional 6,300 people arriving. How are we expecting local authorities to cope with the growing number, particularly when you have cut the funding?
Felicity Buchan: The tariff funding for those who arrive from 2023 onwards is going down. As I say, it is about getting that balance right, but we do have these two new schemes—the £150 million for homelessness and the £500 million to buy stock—so they are almost there as a replacement.
Q119 Kate Hollern: I struggle to understand that. There is money to buy properties to get people in, but in terms of the support that councils are currently giving to an increased number, what was the justification for cutting the funding?
Felicity Buchan: It is about getting that balance right. We are also allowing for funding to be rolled over. If a local authority wants more funding in year two, they can roll money over. There are also Ukrainians going back, too.
Emma Payne: I would add that it is now £5,900 per individual who arrives in the UK, and that is paid out to local authorities. In addition, for the next financial year, 2023-24, there will be the £150 million pot, which will be allocated across the UK to support councils in that year.
Q120 Kate Hollern: That is to secure homes. Local councils return data every month on how they are spending their money. Are we saying that local authorities are spending a lot less than you anticipated when you awarded £10,500?
Felicity Buchan: No, we are not saying that. The funding is un-ringfenced, so local authorities have a lot of flexibility as to how they spend it, but we are getting returns, as you quite rightly say, and we are finding that local authorities may not have spent 100% but are spending decent amounts of money. As I say, they do have the flexibility to roll over the money, since it is un-ringfenced.
Q121 Kate Hollern: Because we do not know if there is alignment of the two schemes, it appears that local authorities are picking up a lot more responsibility and taking a lot more pressure for less money. It is always nice to hear Ministers complimenting local authorities, but we just seem to be constantly passing responsibility onto them with a bigger financial burden and less support.
Felicity Buchan: We very much have the philosophy that local authorities are in the best position to make local decisions. We are asking local authorities to take quite a lot of decisions, but that is in the best interests of the communities.
Q122 Kate Hollern: You are accepting these additional responsibilities. Going back to my question a few minutes ago, in terms of the returns that councils send in, are you suggesting that there are enough resources to cut that funding to £5,900? Are you saying that you have awarded £10,500, but that councils are doing a great job and only spending on average £5,900? Is that what you are telling me?
Felicity Buchan: No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is flexibility to roll money over. We are not anticipating any significant underspend from councils. As I have said previously, we have to get the balance right between the money that Treasury is spending and the resources needed on the ground.
Q123 Chair: Basically, this is a decision to cut funding, is it not? There is no justification for it.
Felicity Buchan: Especially as we go on and local authorities are very much finessing their schemes and their approach, we very much feel that there are efficiencies.
Q124 Chair: Minister, look, you have the figures from local authorities, which have had £10,500 to spend. The simple question is how you justify cutting that money to £5,900. Do you have the evidence that local authorities are only spending £5,900 or less? If you do not, you are asking local authorities to fund this from the rest of their budgets, are you not?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, we have two other pots of money that we are making available—the £150 million and the £500 million—which are in addition.
Q125 Chair: Can you set out the figures to show that, at the end of the day, local authorities are not going to have to dip into their other resources—which would ordinarily be spent on other services for their communities—to fund Ukrainian refugees?
Felicity Buchan: I had a call with the Local Government Association just as we were announcing the new package, and it was well received.
Q126 Chair: That is not quite what the LGA has said to us, but never mind. You are saying that there is a reduction of £4,600 per refugee, which will come about with the new tariff. If you multiply that by the number of refugees, that can all be paid for out of the £150 million, can it?
Felicity Buchan: This is the tariff for new arrivals. Obviously, we do not know how many new arrivals we are going to have. That is going to depend on the war.
Q127 Chair: It is a guess as to whether the £150 million will cover it.
Felicity Buchan: That is our best assessment. In Government, you are always managing risk.
Q128 Chair: Why do you not just stick to a proper amount per refugee, rather than having to guess?
Felicity Buchan: No, it is not a guess. It is our assessment of the money needed.
Q129 Kate Hollern: I am asking a simple question: what is it based on? The £150 million is to buy or refurbish properties.
Felicity Buchan: No, not the £150 million.
Kate Hollern: To support guests to move into their own home.
Emma Payne: There are three different funding streams. The first is the tariff funding that is paid out per arrival. That is now at £5,900 per arrival.
Q130 Kate Hollern: Why?
Emma Payne: Because that is the judgment of the level that is right.
Kate Hollern: Is that how much per head you can afford, or is that how much it is costing?
Q131 Paul Holmes: Who has made the decision to take it down? Sorry to interject, but it is a very simple question: why is it at £5,200? You said that that is a decision that has been made. Who made the decision? Is it political?
Felicity Buchan: No, that is a Government decision with many factors being taken, and the money that we feel will be needed is clearly a critical part of that decision.
Q132 Mrs Elphicke: Just to remind the Minister, I talked a short time ago about the funding being withdrawn from the Dover Outreach Centre, one of the eight principal centres being supported. Dover District Council wants to carry on funding that. It is a very committed, very compassionate and engaged council, but it is going to have to find that money from its own resources.
In addition, members of the Committee will know about some of the extreme pressures in Kent, which mean that there are no school places for some children in some years in various places around the county, and other pressures on local services that I will not go into. What assessment has been made in terms of local authorities’ capacity and funding to meet not just the single stream, but multiple pressures that a council might have at this time?
Felicity Buchan: Clearly, in coming up with the number, we did make an assessment of how much money we thought was required, in terms of homelessness, buying housing stock and ongoing cost, hence how we set the tariff. There is no perfect formula. It was a judgment as to what the right amount of money is. Clearly, it would be easy for me to write a bigger cheque. That would be an easy thing to do, but we have to be aware that the Government have fiscal challenges.
Q133 Chair: Minister, can you send a note to the Committee explaining precisely how you calculated the £5,900 figure?
Felicity Buchan: As I said, I cannot give you a perfect formula, but I am very happy to put in writing the factors that were taken into consideration.
Q134 Chair: We would like to see how the figures were calculated in relation to what local authorities are going to spend. That would be really helpful.
Emma Payne: I would add that different local authorities are spending different amounts of money on different things relating to what the priorities are in their area, to support the sponsors and the guests within their area, and that does look different in different parts of the country.
Q135 Paul Holmes: That is fine, but you have come up with a uniform figure. They spend different amounts, but the Government, or the Department, have come up with one figure that is going to be targeted to all local authorities. There may not be a formula, but there must be, somewhere in the bowels of the Department, not a risk assessment but a policy assessment of how civil servants, Ministers or anybody came to take that figure forward. That must exist within the Department.
Felicity Buchan: As I say, we will provide in writing the considerations, but I am not going to be able to say, “£500 is to be dedicated to that and £250 to that”.
Chair: We would just like to know how you got to £5,900; it is a very precise figure.
Kate Hollern: Someone must have made an assessment of the £10,500 initially, so what has changed?
Q136 Mary Robinson: Minister, you rightly recognised earlier that many people have settled in local areas and the children have started at local schools, all of which highlights the importance of English proficiency. We have heard that, on the one hand, there is a shortage of Ukrainian translators in schools and hospitals, and, on the other hand, that Ukrainians are struggling to access paid employment. Would you consider setting up a scheme to employ Ukrainian refugees as translators in schools and hospitals?
Felicity Buchan: Let me talk big picture initially. We absolutely agree with you that English language is incredibly important. I was happy to see that English fluency in the survey is going up. In June 2022, it was 44% percent of people. It is now 57%, so that is a material improvement. ESOL is clearly very important here.
Specifically on translators, I am aware that translating is a very specific skill. It requires fluency in both languages, and I do not think anyone can do it. Our focus is on improving English language skills and, again, councils are doing a very good job. A number of people have asked whether it should be online, for instance, and we do see councils, especially those with rural areas, really looking to provide flexibility with online English language, as well as flexibility as to the time of the day, because childcare is a major issue.
Q137 Mary Robinson: Would the Government fund an online ESOL programme?
Felicity Buchan: We are encouraging local authorities to spend some of their money on ESOL. They are doing that and there are some great schemes out there.
Q138 Mary Robinson: We have also heard that English lessons are more difficult to access in some regions compared to others. How are the Government working to correct this?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, we are encouraging local authorities to be innovative in their approach. We have provided councils with per capita tariff funding to support integration, which includes English language training, on top of the existing adult education budget. The adult education budget is £1.34 billion this academic year.
Q139 Mary Robinson: Can you give an example, Minister, of a local authority that has been innovative in the way that they have dealt with this? What does innovative look like?
Emma Payne: There are a range of things that we are seeing. We are seeing the use of online provision in some areas. There are also some charities that have been working with councils on online provision, which has the benefit of flexibility, as the Minister said, but also intensity, which we know is really important for this cohort. There are some schemes in some areas very focused on English language for work, which, again, we know is important for this cohort.
Q140 Mary Robinson: Clearly, this will lead to some regional disparities in the way that people are accessing this, yet we know that the ability to speak English proficiently is an aid to people getting employment. Would the Government not consider ironing out some of these regional disparities and ensuring that, wherever a person settles, they are going to have access to this level of education?
Felicity Buchan: There is good news in terms of Ukrainians in work. The latest statistics show that 56% are in work and 76% have access to employment services. When you think that the cohort is often mothers with young children, those are good numbers. We clearly want the focus on English language, but the best way to do that is not to ordain it from the top down but very much to empower local authorities.
Q141 Mary Robinson: It could be the case that a Ukrainian person has very good English skills, yet their child is attending a school where there is no translator. Can we not just fix them up so that they are able to plug that gap?
Felicity Buchan: As I say, local authorities are doing an awful lot of good things on the ground, but we want to empower them. This topic is very close to my heart, because my constituency is one of the centres of the Ukrainian community. I have the Ukrainian school, the embassy and the cultural association, so it is very important to me. I see that local authorities, as I say, are really empowering people.
Q142 Andrew Lewer: Many Ukrainian qualifications are not being recognised by employers. Can you tell me what work is going on across Government to try to address that?
Felicity Buchan: This is a very important point. It is a cross-Government effort. BEIS is leading it, but it clearly has a lot of involvement also from the Department for Education and the Department of Health. We are encouraging as many areas as possible to really look at Ukrainian qualifications and to see whether they suffice in terms of our standards. There is also a Government-funded service in place to translate certificates and to provide advice on access to jobs within different industries, but it is a real priority. Our Secretary of State brought together people from every Government Department the other month specifically to talk about this and about ESOL.
Q143 Andrew Lewer: We heard from a panel that the main difficulty has been in private sector qualification recognition. I just wondered whether the Government have any thoughts about making it slightly clearer to Ukrainians, as well as to potential private sector employees, that, under the Lisbon recognition convention, which both Ukraine and the United Kingdom are signatories to, this ought to be more straightforward than it has been. Highly skilled and highly trained individuals are potentially not finding it in any way straightforward to get access to those professions, even when those professions are sometimes quite short of people.
Felicity Buchan: I completely agree that we want as many Ukrainians in highly skilled jobs as possible, so we do not want there to be barriers to entry. For instance, DWP, which I have not mentioned to date, has a page on GOV.UK that enables private sector employers to seek advice on how to offer jobs to Ukrainians. We are actively promoting this service, so it really does have the focus of Government.
Q144 Andrew Lewer: If we could hear a little more on paper to the Committee about that DWP scheme, that would be quite interesting to have a read of. The flip side of employability, of course, is tax and tax returns. When we spoke to the community groups and individual representatives of the Ukrainian community that is now over here, we certainly heard that they have had tremendous difficulties in doing their tax returns, for all sorts of reasons. One of the main ones is that they cannot provide a UK ID that enables them to set up a Government Gateway account, which would enable them to do an online tax return ahead of the deadline, which passed on 31 October.
I wondered whether any work was going on to assist refugees with tax return problems, which seemed a serious concern when we had our roundtable event.
Felicity Buchan: I am sorry to hear that. It slightly surprises me because every Ukrainian arrival is provided with a national insurance number as a matter of urgency when they arrive. Clearly, I am showing that I have not quite done my online taxes yet—I have a couple of weeks—but the last time I filled them in I remember that I was only required to give my national insurance number to get access to the Government Gateway. They should be able to have access with a national insurance number.
Andrew Lewer: My recollection is that it was not as straightforward as that. Am I remembering that right?
Paul Holmes: You need to provide a passport or driving licence. That is what I had to provide to get back into the gateway system. It is not as simple as a national insurance number.
Emma Payne: I would just add that HMRC has published guidance and translated it into Ukrainian. Again, if specific issues are being picked up on this, we will absolutely take those away.
Q145 Andrew Lewer: Double taxation was one of the issues. There were five main points that came up, about which I would be interested in your views. Many do not know about the double taxation treaty; the refugees have had this UK ID problem; some have returned to Ukraine and cannot post a paper-based return; and there are the two deadlines. There is 31 October, which has already gone, and, as you observed with feeling, Minister, the tax return deadline online is 31 January 2023. I understand that the response that you had already done your tax return last year does not apply; you have to do it every year, apparently.
Those are the five main problems. I wondered whether you had any response to that now, or whether it would be helpful to take away those responses from the people we have been consulting.
Felicity Buchan: As Emma said, there is HMRC guidance that has also been translated into Ukrainian. I am slightly surprised that there are these issues, but I am very happy to go off and ensure the guidance answers all the questions you have alluded to, such as the double taxation treaty.
Q146 Chair: Have you looked at the extent to which Ukrainian refugees look to HMRC and have understanding and knowledge of where to go to? Are they being helped in that through the Department?
Felicity Buchan: We have regular contact with the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain. I know them personally very well because some of them are based in my constituency. We have that contact.
Emma Payne: We have also brought together all of the guidance into a single welcome pack for Ukrainians arriving in the country. It is quite clearly signposted there, and again through local authorities.
Chair: I want to move on to look at our wider policy on refugees, because we seem to have quite a lot of policies for different refugees.
Q147 Dame Diana Johnson: I am guesting today from the Home Affairs Select Committee. Clearly, as we know, the Ukrainian scheme, Homes for Ukraine, is a Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities responsibility, but the Home Affairs Select Committee has been paying attention to what has been going on. You will be aware that, when the schemes were created last year, there were some initial teething problems with them. We were very mindful to see what was going on. I am very grateful to be here today.
The Chair makes a very good point. We have talked about the Afghans and the particular problems around housing for Afghans. Minister, you were good enough to give me an explanation for the 500 homes that were going to be provided. What I am getting at is that this is across Government Departments and across Ministers in Government.
Certainly, this Committee has heard evidence from the Local Government Association and the Refugee Council that a model should be adopted that is an overarching way of dealing with asylum seekers and refugees rather than the ad hoc schemes that are created as we go along. Minister, what is your view of that approach?
Felicity Buchan: I am working very closely with the Home Office.
Q148 Dame Diana Johnson: What does that mean? When you say you are “working closely”, how does that manifest itself?
Felicity Buchan: I have very regular meetings with my counterparts in the Home Office. If you look at an official level, our Second Permanent Secretary is in DLUHC and in the Home Office. He has set up a senior oversight group to co-ordinate the work of officials. Local government representatives also sit on that oversight group. We are aware of the fact that you could effectively have local authorities and the Home Office competing for the same dispersal accommodation. We want to ensure that does not happen.
Being a London MP, I am aware that there is an informal arrangement in London with London councils that they do not bid against each other for temporary accommodation, for instance. We are looking to mirror that to ensure that our right hand always knows what our left hand is doing.
Q149 Dame Diana Johnson: Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing?
Felicity Buchan: Yes.
Q150 Dame Diana Johnson: Does it really?
Felicity Buchan: Yes. I can say that confidently. As I say, I meet my counterparts, the Home Secretary—not that the Home Secretary is my counterpart—and the Minister for Immigration, on a very regular basis.
Q151 Dame Diana Johnson: There are no problems at the moment with the fact that this scheme sits within the local government Department and the Home Office does what it does. There are no problems with this at all; everything is working perfectly, is it?
Felicity Buchan: The co-ordination is good at the moment. It was not necessarily a while ago, but the co-ordination between our two Departments is good at the moment. It can always be better.
Q152 Dame Diana Johnson: How could it be better? Explain it to me.
Felicity Buchan: We are putting in place detailed plans on asylum accommodation and on Afghan resettlement, which we have just talked about. On our Ukrainian scheme, we are very much encouraging rematching and sponsorship to extend. We have a good working relationship, and we are very focused on the fact we need to be very co-ordinated.
Q153 Dame Diana Johnson: You dismiss what the Local Government Association and the Refugee Council are saying.
Felicity Buchan: I am talking about where we are now. I cannot talk about where we were three months or six months ago. There is real co-ordination at the moment.
Dame Diana Johnson: The Chair met with the Local Government Association in January. Do I have that correct?
Chair: It was the Refugee Council.
Q154 Dame Diana Johnson: That was in January of this year.
Felicity Buchan: Hopefully they will see better implementation and practice being implemented going forward.
Q155 Dame Diana Johnson: Along with the Chair of this Committee, we wrote together to the Department in November asking for data on arrivals under the various schemes we have been talking about, including the small boats problem that we have. We wrote in November asking for that detailed data, which would help us all understand what is going on, where people are coming from and the numbers that everyone is having to deal with. We have not had a response to that.
Felicity Buchan: Yes, and we are conscious that the response is outstanding. We are collecting all of that data. I do not know whether you want to go into more detail.
Emma Payne: I would echo that we are aware that the response is outstanding. We are working on that between DLUHC and the Home Office.
Q156 Dame Diana Johnson: You are working on it. That data is all available, I am assuming. The slowness is putting it together into one letter.
Emma Payne: We can talk about the data on the Ukraine schemes. I can cover what is published there, which is data by arrivals and by location, and demographic data.
Q157 Dame Diana Johnson: You are telling me that everything is good in terms of co-ordination. I am just trying to understand—if the Home Office has all its data and you have all your data—what the delay is in getting a response to myself and the Chair of this Committee?
Felicity Buchan: We are collating that information, and we will get it to you as soon as we have it available.
Q158 Dame Diana Johnson: Do you know when that will be?
Felicity Buchan: I cannot give you an exact date.
Emma Payne: It will be as soon as possible.
Q159 Dame Diana Johnson: This is an example of the two Departments being very co-ordinated.
Felicity Buchan: As I say, we are working much more closely together. I hope you will see that coming through on the ground.
Chair: We move on to the unfortunate situation where you come up with a good scheme and some people want to rip it off, to use the colloquial phrase.
Q160 Kate Hollern: In our recent session on lived experiences, we were told that scams and fraud are rife. Are you aware of the problem?
Felicity Buchan: We take fraud very seriously, as you would expect when we are spending public money. In developing the control environment for the scheme, the Department has undertaken a comprehensive fraud risk assessment, with the help of appropriate experts such as the cross‑Government complex grants advice panel. There are a lot of checks in place.
To prevent fraudulent activity, grant funding for the local authority is only given after the visa for the Ukrainian national has been issued, they have subsequently arrived in the UK and the LA has confirmed their arrival at their authority. Grant funding is provided in arrears after a robust quality assurance process. “Thank you” payments are only given after the local authority has confirmed that all sponsor checks have been completed and the sponsor requests payment.
Q161 Kate Hollern: It is interesting that you have said that. Both the Independent article and the Committee’s roundtable drew attention to cases where the Home Office issued a visa before the council could conduct a DBS or accommodation check. It has led to some concerns both on financial fraud and on safeguarding.
Emma Payne: There are a series of checks that are done through the application process for the scheme. The Home Office conducts a series of checks when the visa is applied for. The visa is only granted when those initial security checks have been done. At the same time, the local authority is asked to complete accommodation checks and to have the necessary DBS checks undertaken.
Those local authority-led checks do not have to be completed before the visa is issued, but we ask local authorities to complete those as quickly as possible. As the Minister said, the “thank you” payments will only be paid out once all of those local authority checks have been completed as a series of safeguards in the system.
Q162 Kate Hollern: You are talking about money; I am talking about safeguarding. Visas have been issued before safeguarding had carried out the proper checks. There is a bit of a danger there, is there not?
Emma Payne: Before a visa is issued, the Home Office conducts checks during that visa process. A visa would not be issued unless the Home Office checks have been completed. At the same time, the local authority also conducts a series of checks. Those checks do not need to be completed before a visa is issued.
Q163 Kate Hollern: You do not have any concern about fraud.
Felicity Buchan: We cannot guarantee that schemes are fraud-free, but we have put in place this robust control environment. Of course, there could be elements of fraud.
Q164 Kate Hollern: There were examples like a kebab shop and a smoke room—places that were not properly checked where people have been going. There is fraud there. Ukrainian people in particular are also being scammed, with people being charged huge amounts of money, with a guarantee of a visa and a home. I know that is very difficult, but it is very important. For Ukrainian families themselves, what sort of guidance do you issue to forewarn people about potential fraud?
Emma Payne: At the visa application stage, there is a series of guidance for those who are thinking about applying to the scheme. We are very clear that this is not a scheme that costs money. No one has to pay for their visa for this scheme. That is clear in the guidance.
As I say, on the points you raise about accommodation and fraud, the data flows to the local authority at the moment the visa is requested. The local authority can see the applications that have been made within their local area. They can start the checks as soon as they are able to at that point in time.
Q165 Kate Hollern: You are not giving me any confidence that there is a clear grasp on the different ways people are being exploited.
Felicity Buchan: If you have examples, please do share them. The last thing we want to do is to have vulnerable people being exploited.
Kate Hollern: I will do that. I will just read you this paragraph: “The potential exploitation of Ukrainians highlighted by our research indicates that there has been a lack of strategic co-ordination at the level of central Government Departments, namely DLUHC and the Home Office, meaning that visa processing has been out of sync with local authority checks”. That could possibly leave people vulnerable.
You spoke about the application for the visa. Is there any other information warning people, “If someone asks you for money, do not do it; this costs you nothing”? Is there advice put out by this Government to people who applying that no one can guarantee them a house, or that there is no cost to the visa? Do we offer any advice to these vulnerable people?
Emma Payne: As I say, there is guidance published. At the point that anyone looks to apply for a visa through the scheme, there is advice published by the Home Office.
Q166 Kate Hollern: Does it warn people of scams?
Emma Payne: I think it does, but I can double-check that.
Felicity Buchan: Yes, I do not have it in front of me. We can get that to you.
Q167 Kate Hollern: This touches on some of the points that were covered by other Members, such as HMRC, renting and all the places people need to go for advice. In each Department—it is cross‑departmental—do we have enough Ukrainian translators to make sure the information provided is understandable?
Emma Payne: We are careful to ensure that all guidance we put out is translated. That is working quite well. Everything is translated promptly.
Kate Hollern: It would be useful to warn people of potential scams.
Q168 Chair: Who is responsible for sorting out fraud and potential fraud? Is it DLUHC or the Home Office?
Felicity Buchan: We administer Homes for Ukraine so we are responsible for Homes for Ukraine.
Q169 Chair: We were given an example of one host family, under Homes for Ukraine, having their information used on multiple visa applications, which is presumably done through the Home Office. Who joins that up to stop fraud?
Emma Payne: The Home Office and DLUHC work together on much of this scheme. We bring that all together at the programme level. On safeguarding in particular, we have brought together a number of experts from national and local government to keep looking at the safeguarding systems across the scheme.
Q170 Kate Hollern: The Independent article gave a number of cases. Would it be possible to get anonymised information on this from the Home Office and local authorities, so that we can see exactly what checks are carried out?
Felicity Buchan: You want, in writing, the checks we do and what checks the Home Office does.
Kate Hollern: Yes, and any gaps that you think may be there. There is exploitation going on and quite serious fraud.
Q171 Chair: Could you explain how it works together with the Departments? The Home Office deals with visas; you deal with the people who are volunteering to house people in their homes. How can we avoid getting 16 visas granted to one two-bedroom house?
Felicity Buchan: We are very happy to come back in writing, but if you have any specific examples like that, we are very happy to look into specific cases.
Q172 Chair: I have one follow-up point. We mentioned the safeguarding issues. When Richard Harrington came to see us, he was really a bit floored when we said that local authorities were responsible for children in their area, but, on the family scheme, for example, local authorities do not have a clue who is coming over. They could be coming over to live with family members who the children have never seen. The parents or whoever goes with them often go back to Ukraine because their idea is to make their children safe, for very good reasons, and then they want to go back home. Maybe it is the wife coming back to support her husband at home. They leave those children with people who may be family members, but they are probably distant ones. The local authority does not have a clue about that. Can we not do something to improve that situation?
Felicity Buchan: Local authorities do have statutory safeguarding functions. That is their role.
Chair: Yes, but they do not know about the children. They will not necessarily know that they are there.
Kate Hollern: If they do not know they are there, how can they check?
Q173 Chair: This is a serious point.
Felicity Buchan: No, I am not in any way dismissing it. We value this level of scrutiny.
Chair: It would be helpful to have a look at that point again to see what can be done.
Q174 Dame Diana Johnson: Is it possible for you to explain whether there is some reason why the Home Office would not be allowed to share with your Department or with local authorities those people who were arriving under the Ukraine family scheme, particularly vulnerable people? I am thinking of children in particular. Is there some statutory reason why that is not possible?
Emma Payne: On the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the data flows. The family scheme, as we say, is a Home Office-led scheme.
Q175 Dame Diana Johnson: You have this close co-ordination. I am trying to pinpoint what the problem is. The vital information that councils need to know is not being made available. What is the problem? You are having this close co-ordination with the Home Office. What have they said to you about this?
Emma Payne: We can discuss that further with them.
Paul Holmes: Does that mean there has been no discussion about the fact that when people come here, we do not know where they go on that scheme?
Dame Diana Johnson: Yes, because there is this close co-ordination and constant discussion.
Q176 Paul Holmes: The scheme has been running for however long it has been running. Notwithstanding the question that Diana asked about your Department not being given the information by the Home Office, surely it is integral for both Government Departments to know where these people have ended up, exactly because of this safeguarding issue. As we have not had an answer to that question, has there been no conversation—it could be through officials—about securing that information to tell where vulnerable underage people are in this country when they are being placed?
Felicity Buchan: We have a separate unaccompanied minors scheme. I want to make that clear. That is entirely separate. When you come into our country through the safe routes—this is not only Ukraine; safe routes have been in place—these people’s residences are not monitored on an ongoing basis going forward.
Q177 Paul Holmes: No one is suggesting that. If we have children coming into this country and being put into an environment, Government would expect to know where they are and make sure they are safe when they enter this country. That would be a minimum expectation.
Felicity Buchan: I am very happy to talk about the unaccompanied minors scheme.
Chair: It is not just unaccompanied minors.
Felicity Buchan: No, I understand.
Paul Holmes: It is the family scheme.
Chair: It is the family scheme. The parents often go back. It is quite a regular occurrence. There are very good reasons.
Mrs Elphicke: We have all expressed concerns over the safeguarding oversight for the Ukraine family scheme, but it is also about ensuring that children in those settings are going to school and having appropriate GP care. It is about ensuring that all the support that we would expect to be in place is there and that no one who is being brought here is being exploited. There have been some sad instances in other situations where extended family members have not always looked after other family members and children with respect. This absolutely is an area where more needs to be done.
Q178 Kate Hollern: One local authority did tell us that DLUHC said it was setting up a fraud unit. Has that happened yet? I have not seen any announcement.
Emma Payne: We have issued guidance to local authorities on fraud, and we also have a helpdesk system for local authorities to contact us and discuss any issues, questions or concerns they have. There is really regular engagement in place on a whole number of issues, including safeguarding concerns, fraud concerns or other concerns.
Q179 Bob Blackman: A lot of Ukrainians have left Ukraine by car; they have used their car to cross Europe to get to the UK. I accept that the Department for Levelling Up is not responsible for car adaptations, and so on, but DVLA, HMRC and other Government agencies are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles on our roads are roadworthy and conform to our conditions. The evidence we have received is that it has been very difficult for Ukrainians to understand what they have to do to adapt their vehicles. I wonder whether any advice has been given—certainly, we could not find any—to Ukrainians arriving here with their vehicles about what they have to do with those vehicles to make sure that they are safe on our roads.
Felicity Buchan: I have heard this from a number of MPs. As a result of that, we have put advice out. That has now been published, has it not?
Emma Payne: DFT has produced detailed guidance for Ukrainians on registering their vehicles. There are two elements here. There is a temporary admission procedure, which enables Ukrainians to have their vehicles here for six months without paying any customs duty or import VAT. They are able to extend that for the full three-year period.
On registration and adaptations, as the Minister said, the Department for Transport has published guidance on this.
Q180 Bob Blackman: When was that published, to be clear?
Emma Payne: I do not have the specific date, but we can send the guidance to the Committee.
Q181 Bob Blackman: Is it published online? How is it available to people? One of the problems is that not everyone has access to computer equipment, as you will appreciate.
Emma Payne: My understanding is that it was published on GOV.UK. As with all the bits of guidance, we make sure that local authorities also have it so they can signpost it clearly to Ukrainian guests.
Q182 Bob Blackman: Can I just clarify that? Does this apply to vehicles that are registered in Ukraine? Some people have acquired vehicles en route. They will have travelled in various different ways, many through Poland and so on.
The other challenge—it is a challenge on our roads right now—is around people from eastern Europe, from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and other countries, who have brought their vehicles over. They drive around all over the place and, frankly, they ignore the requirements we have in the UK. Does this specifically apply to Ukrainian vehicles?
Felicity Buchan: No, this is not a separate standard for Ukrainian vehicles. This is the same as any vehicle coming into the UK from a foreign country. It needs to be registered in the UK and we need to ensure, similar to an MOT, that it is up to our roadworthiness standards.
To be very transparent, I have heard from a few MPs that they are concerned about the potential costs involved. Clearly, for Ukrainians being hosted in rural communities, having a car or access to a car is important. Behind the scenes, we are having conversations about this. If work needs to be done to a car, it needs to be done, but can it be done on a temporary basis? Is there any way, in terms of processing and administration, to potentially get costs down?
Q183 Bob Blackman: Can we be clear on this? There is a range of different vehicles that might come over, which might require all sorts of different modifications. I am not clear what those would be. Clearly, that is of concern. It could be, as you say, quite expensive to make them fit for purpose on our roads.
Equally, I do not know, but I suspect that there is not the same regime in Ukraine for MOTs and suchlike on vehicles. People will be completely unaware of that requirement, particularly on older vehicles. It is very much a tailored view. It is not just standard but tailored, depending on the vehicles. Where do people go for help on this? If you are a Ukrainian citizen who has arrived here and who says, “I want to make sure my car is roadworthy and fit for purpose”, et cetera, what do you do? Where do you go?
Felicity Buchan: That is a very good question. If anyone has any issues, we recommend they contact the Vehicle Certification Agency or the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I am sure that all of that is in the advice.
Q184 Bob Blackman: Do they do so online or by phone? How do they do that? Is there a Ukrainian speaker on the end of the line? There are all of these complications. I understand completely that this is not your area of responsibility.
Chair: It is now.
Bob Blackman: This is the sort of question that we will likely get asked, quite reasonably.
Felicity Buchan: Yes, I do not have the DFT guidance in front of me, but I am hoping that it covers all of the questions you have raised. We will send it to you.
Bob Blackman: If that could be sent to us as a note, that would be helpful.
Q185 Kate Hollern: Very quickly, is that information included in the welcome pack?
Emma Payne: It may be signposted in the welcome pack, but it probably is not included.
Chair: Can you make sure that it is at least signposted?
Q186 Kate Hollern: Could I have a copy of the welcome pack?
Chair: All of us would appreciate that.
Felicity Buchan: Yes.
Emma Payne: Yes, absolutely.
Chair: Thank you to all of you very much for coming in this afternoon. There are a few issues that we have asked you to go away and think about, and some that we have asked you to go away and come back with further information on. It would be appreciated if that could be done as quickly as possible.
Felicity Buchan: We understand. We do value this level of scrutiny. It is in all of our interests to get this absolutely right. If there are areas where something could have fallen between the cracks, we want to hear that. We want to hear about particular cases.
Chair: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our public proceedings for today.