Written evidence submitted by London Councils (AAC0104)

Introduction

London Councils is the cross-party collective body of London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London Corporation. Boroughs speak as one through London Councils and collaborate with the government, Greater London Authority, wider public sector, third sector, business, community sector and other key cities. The submission of evidence by London Councils represents a collective voice across London local government on asylum accommodation.

Section 1: Delivery of asylum accommodation

The Home Office’s use and management of asylum accommodation contracts

1.1 Scope and enforcement of existing contracts

There is a lack of clarity about which part of the asylum estate the existing provider contracts apply to. Certain contracts between Clearsprings Ready Homes and the Home Office were drawn up before the usage of hotels and large sites as asylum accommodation. Therefore, clarity is needed on whether Clearsprings are expected to apply these existing contract conditions to all contingency hotels as well as dispersal accommodation. Where this relates to room sharing policies for example, the impact on people seeking asylum is very significant. There should be no ambiguity in the requirements on providers.

The Home Office should also hold enforcement power over Clearsprings for their delivery of the current contracts, for any type of accommodation including dispersal accommodation. There should be levers and penalties in the contracts which the Home Office could use when needed, as an important way of ensuring that standards and safeguarding measures are met.

1.2 New accommodation within asylum contracts

There are concerns in London that Clearsprings continues to hand back more dispersal accommodation properties each month than it procures. This reflects an ongoing trend over the last year. As a consequence of Providers failing to meet their procurement targets in London and elsewhere, new hotels have opened in London and dispersal accommodation has reduced. Government statistics show that as of 30 September, there were 14,310 people seeking asylum accommodated by the Home Office in contingency accommodation in London (asylum hotels).

Concerningly, the Home Office and Clearsprings have presented no plan that we are aware of for how this trend might be reversed. The barriers to full dispersal are unclear due to a lack of transparency but may include the price paid by the Home Office to their providers and a lack of accountability over providers by the Home Office. The scarcity and cost of the Private Rented Sector (PRS) in London exacerbates the issue. We understand that Clearsprings make more profits via hotel procurement, so the current system disincentivises dispersal accommodation procurement. 

Performance of providers delivering the current contracts

1.3 Accommodation standards concerns

Extensive feedback provided by London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. This includes examples of overcrowding, lack of ventilation and natural lighting, lack of communal space, leaks, rodent infestations, bedbugs, mould and damp.

Breaches in room size and overcrowding are recurrent issues raised. One London borough shared that 10 -12 individuals had been sharing hostel dorm rooms for over two years. A recent inspection of the site found that several of the rooms in the hostel violated space standards.  

One further key concern is fire safety. In two separate fire incidents in asylum hotels in London boroughs in March 2024, neither borough was informed that a fire had occurred within hotels in the borough. This caused significant disruption to the schooling of children and raised broader issues around the assurance and oversight of fire safety standards and procedures across asylum hotel accommodation. 

1.4 Hotel inspections

We welcome that the Home Office Assurance Team now shares inspection reports with local authorities. However, it should now be a priority to clarify Clearsprings’s processes and timescales around fixing the issues identified. We understand that a number of barriers remain in implementing effective enforcement action including the subcontractor model of providers and lack of capacity in Home Office assurance.

Additionally, we have very significant concerns about the use of windowless rooms to accommodate people seeking asylum, both from a physical and mental health point of view and due to the risk of re-traumatisation. We understand that Clearsprings have committed to only use windowless rooms temporarily for new arrivals and do regular welfare checks. However, we are aware of cases where people have been living in windowless rooms for many months.

We call for a strict limit of a small number of days to be put on how long Clearsprings can house someone in a room without a window and for recognition of these rooms as unsafe from a wellbeing perspective. These wellbeing concerns should be prioritised over financial considerations and Clearsprings should be appropriately held to account for usage of unsuitable rooms beyond the agreed timescale.

1.4 Malnutrition and health impacts

Food is raised by people seeking asylum and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) groups as the most common concern which affects both the physical and mental health of people staying in Home Office accommodation. Evidence provided by London local authorities includes examples of malnutrition owing to a lack of food options. A lack of self-catering facilities in the long-term also has a detrimental impact on the mental health of people seeking asylum.

London boroughs have long been calling on Clearsprings Ready Homes to ensure that there are feedback mechanisms for food provisions. This should include anonymous feedback and an improvement in the level of food standards to meet school food standards. An investigation into the physical and mental impacts of food provisions in asylum accommodation would be welcomed by London Councils.

1.5 Safeguarding concerns in Home Office asylum accommodation

There have been significant concerns raised by London boroughs regarding safeguarding risks and incidents in asylum hotels. These concerns have been compounded by a lack of safeguarding referrals being made by hotel staff to local authorities, with reports that VCSE organisations, health partners and police colleagues often become aware of safeguarding issues before the local authority. A London Councils survey in February 2024 found that, of the 16 London Boroughs which responded, 93% of these had received no safeguarding referrals concerning adults from hotel staff in Home Office Asylum Accommodation between September 2023 and February 2024.

The London Asylum Safeguarding Task and Finish Group, convened by London Councils, has been meeting since April 2024 to drive improvement around safeguarding concerns. The group was set up following a deep dive by London Councils into significant asylum hotel safeguarding concerns in Hounslow. Through this group it was agreed that Clearsprings subcontractors should make safeguarding referrals directly to the relevant local authority rather than triaging concerns themselves, to increase safeguarding referrals. However, concerns persist around the extent to which this change is being implemented and whether all hotel staff have the relevant knowledge and skills to do so. Greater assurance over the safeguarding training which hotel staff receive is needed and Clearsprings should ensure access to preventative services.

The subcontractor model used by Clearsprings further adds complications and reduces accountability for safeguarding incidents. The Safeguarding from the Frontline report commissioned by the Greater London Authority (GLA) explores a number of recommendations including the need to increase accountability and oversight of the system for people seeking asylum, for example through unannounced visits to active sites and an anonymous complaints system.

Additionally, there should also be a focus on safeguarding within dispersal accommodation and a mechanism for people to report safeguarding concerns. Greater data sharing is required to help local authorities with safeguarding and prevention in the dispersal accommodation context, as explored in section 1.8.

1.6 Violence against women and girls concerns in hotels

In addition to safeguarding concerns more broadly, London Councils has significant concerns about violence against women and girls (VAWG) in asylum hotels. The nature of the asylum hotel estate means that many residents live in the same building in very close proximity. This exacerbates existing vulnerabilities and has led to London boroughs reporting significant numbers of VAWG related safeguarding concerns including sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse and sexual exploitation. Perpetrators of these offences have been reported to be both hotel staff and other residents, further heightening concerns.

There are a number of factors which London boroughs have reported which impede women in asylum hotels from reporting VAWG related concerns. These include:

• Reports that many hotels have a high proportion of male staff members;
• Concerns around how reporting incidents might affect their asylum claims;
• Male figure(s) in the family speaking English on their behalf;
• Concerns about not being believed, supported or empowered to seek safety;
• Impact of trauma, particularly for women escaping sexual violence and abuse and other forms of VAWG;
• Women worried about “rocking the boat”.

Additionally, anonymity is a factor which impacts action being taken when concerns are raised. In some cases, boroughs have reported that the Home Office and Clearsprings will not take action if a concern has been reported anonymously. At the same time, anonymous reporting is particularly likely given the exacerbated vulnerabilities and factors which make reporting particularly difficult for women in an asylum context.

A further factor of note is the very low level of financial support which people receive under Section 98 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act (IAA) of 1999. Those with asylum subsistence support in hotel accommodation receive a weekly allowance of only £8.86. This puts people seeking asylum into a place of financial vulnerability, which increases the likelihood of them being targeted by perpetrators. In the case of women within asylum accommodation, this has led to concerning reports of sexual exploitation in asylum hotels.

To reduce the safeguarding risk to women and girls in the asylum estate, we call for a minimum standard of VAWG and wider safeguarding training for all hotel staff and subcontractors which should be refreshed regularly. This should include awareness of sexual exploitation concerns linked to financial hardship and staff should be able to signpost residents to support services. Additionally, all hotels should have at least one staff member responsible for safeguarding on duty at all times who can react appropriately when complex concerns arise and who is available for residents to speak to.

1.7 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children concerns

There are serious concerns in relation to age assessments and age disputes for unaccompanied children in adult asylum accommodation. From January 2022 to June 2023, more than 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults by the Home Office and placed in adult asylum accommodation. Additionally, between January and June 2023, 57% of the 1,004 referrals to children’s services of individuals assessed as adults by the Home Office were afterwards found to be children, based on local authority data.

This presents a clear safeguarding risk whereby misidentified children are accommodated in adult hotels at increased risk of exploitation. Instead of the Home Office age determination process at port, referrals should be routinely made to local authority children’s services when concerns are raised regarding unaccompanied children within asylum settings.

1.8 Data sharing in dispersal accommodation

Person-level data for people accommodated in dispersal accommodation is not being systematically shared with boroughs. This creates serious safeguarding risks and prevents local authorities from conducting outreach work, increasing the risk of destitution and homelessness once people receive a decision on their asylum claim. Contrastingly, person-level data is shared with local authorities for people in hotel accommodation.

London Councils previously convened a Task and Finish group to move towards a London-wide data sharing agreement between Home Office, providers and London boroughs. However, the Home Office’s final position after several months of work was that sharing personal data for people in dispersal accommodation was not necessary and had GDPR risks attached.

However, this is contrary to the view of London local authorities and our health partners. People seeking asylum and newly recognised refugees share a set of vulnerabilities, risks and barriers to services. These mean that a greater level of information sharing is required (compared to for the general public) to ensure that local authorities can fulfil their statutory duties, as well as deliver non-statutory, preventative services. Therefore, data sharing is justifiable under GDPR for this reason. 

Home Office working with other Government departments and councils on housing supply issues

1.9. Home Office work on housing supply issues

We emphasise the unprecedented housing supply issues in London currently. This includes significant spending on temporary accommodation due to the lack of other available provision. London Councils’ data from 26 London boroughs shows the gross total monthly temporary accommodation spend for September 2024 was up 15.46% on a year before, reaching £97.6m. The housing and homelessness crisis in London must be recognised by the Home Office when working with partners in London in relation to asylum accommodation.

Relatedly, we call for recognition of asylum accommodation as supported/hostel accommodation. If a Local Housing Allowance (LHA) claimant has lived in a hostel or refuge for at least three months, they are eligible for the one-bedroom self-contained LHA rate. The average length of stay in asylum accommodation is indeed greater than three months and it involves shared facilities. Therefore, recognition of it as supported/hostel accommodation would enable refugees who are leaving or have left asylum accommodation to access PRS accommodation at the higher self-contained LHA rate rather than being capped at the Shared Accommodation Rate. The latter is unaffordable in the current PRS market in London, as very few rooms are available and affordable at this lower rate.

Section 2: Impact of current arrangements on local areas

2.1 Home Office’s approach to the distribution of asylum accommodation

In London, there are more than three times the number of people seeking asylum in hotels than in dispersal accommodation. This is in contrast to the national picture, where there are more people in dispersal accommodation than hotels. London faces many significant challenges as a result, as explored in this submission, for which funding should be allocated accordingly.

Another concern relates to a Fair Shares approach. In October 2022, London Leaders agreed that the Home Office’s threshold of 1 in 200 (0.5%), which prevents any borough with an asylum population over 0.5% of their general population from receiving further allocations, should be part of any future asylum plan. The Home Office agreed to respect the 1:200 threshold. However, in November 2024 the Home Office opened new hotels in London boroughs which were already over this threshold. This has provoked serious concerns as to whether future hotel procurement will follow the agreed Fair Shares approach. These hotels were also stood up with less than 48 hours’ notice given to the relevant local authorities which goes against Home Office agreement about a 6-week engagement period.

The Home Office should ensure that asylum accommodation is situated near services and communities where possible. Areas where the 1:200 threshold has been exceeded tend to be areas where people are more isolated, compounding the negative impact. Additionally, we emphasise that hotels should not be opened or have their capacity increased in locations which the local authority has deemed unsuitable, for example due to gang violence or trafficking concerns. This highlights the importance of sufficient notice being given to local authorities so that they can advise of any risks.

2.2 Home Office’s engagement and joint working with partners

We have welcomed engagement between the Home Office, London local government and key partners including the Greater London Authority through various forums, including the London Asylum Oversight Group. This group, convened by the London Strategic Migration Partnership (LSMP), brings together partners including the Home Office and Clearsprings to provide oversight across London and bring matters to their attention in a timely way. This group feeds into the LSMP Board to flag issues at a senior level when needed.

However, we have significant concerns about a lack of Home Office engagement on some issues relating to asylum accommodation. In Summer 2024, the Home Office introduced a new London Asylum Accommodation plan. This was based on the Home Office’s index modelling that drew on the London multi-factor model. However, concerns were raised at the time that the Home Office took a top-down approach to engagement. London local government leaders were not consulted on the change and agreement was not sought for the new dispersal allocations for each borough.

2.3 Impact on those leaving asylum accommodation – refugee homelessness

London Councils recorded record levels of rough sleeping among refugees following their eviction from Home Office accommodation in October 2024, when 127 people were sleeping rough after leaving Home office accommodation across 26 London Boroughs. 120 of these people had positive asylum decisions. According to CHAIN data, a positive decision from the Home Office ending asylum accommodation was the second most common reason for the 11,993 people rough sleeping in London between April 2013 and March 2024, second by only 0.4% to relationship breakdown.

These figures are hugely concerning, with rough sleeping leaving people very vulnerable in terms of their physical health, mental health and risk of exploitation. It is clear that Home Office evictions are resulting in many of the instances of rough sleeping in London. We call for funding for local authorities to provide a wraparound support model which would include early intervention support and facilitate access to employment and ESOL.

Relatedly, the Home Office Liaison Officer (HOLO) pilots were very successful in London and the expansion of this model through the Asylum Move-On Liaison Officers (AMLOs) in four London boroughs is welcomed. We emphasise that sufficient support is needed across London for people seeking asylum both before and after they receive their decision. Being empowered about their options either way, in particular in relation to housing, is essential for people to prepare in advance.

Additionally, we call for the change to a 56 day Move-On period to become permanent. This is particularly needed in light of difficulties experienced with the move to eVisas and banks not accepting eVisas as forms of physical ID for the purpose of opening bank accounts. Both of these changes – local authority funding for support and a permanent 56 day move-on period – are essential to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping.

Feb 2025