Written evidence submitted by The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (AAC0124)

 

  1. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is the representative voice of Local Government in Scotland. COSLA also hosts the Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) for Scotland. We support local authorities in relation to the full range of migration-related programmes that they are involved in, including the expansion of asylum dispersal and asylum contingency accommodation into new areas of Scotland.

 

  1. This submission is operational feedback based on the experiences of key local authority and COSLA officers around the delivery and impact of asylum accommodation in Scotland. Given the short timeframes, we have not received input from all councils, nor has it been ratified through our formal governance process with our 32 member authorities. Unless otherwise stated, it is not therefore an articulation of COSLA’s formal position on asylum policy and practice. Individual councils may wish to provide their own submissions to reflect their particular experiences in more detail. 

 

The delivery of asylum accommodation

 

The Home Office’s use and management of asylum accommodation contracts, including in response to growing demand and changing needs

 

  1. For a number of years, Glasgow was the only dispersal area in Scotland. The city has a long history of accommodating people seeking asylum and hosts the largest number of asylum applicants of any local authority in the UK, as well as over 90% of all supported asylum applicants being accommodated in Scotland. However, further to UK Government’s announcement of Full Dispersal in 2022, all 32 Scottish local authorities agreed to participate and COSLA works together with councils, the Home Office and the current accommodation and support providers to this end. As of January 2025, 19 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities now have Dispersal Accommodation (DA). Additionally, there are 14 Contingency Accommodation (CA) sites across 11 local authorities. Combined, 21 local authorities accommodate asylum applicants in either DA or CA.

 

  1. While the accommodation contract Statement of Requirements and Key Performance Indicators are publicly available, local authorities frequently experience frustrations and challenges when exploring how to make dispersal successful in new areas as they are not privy to the key discussions between the Home Office and the providers that are pivotal in influencing decision making. For instance, during ongoing discussions on enabling dispersal in more remote and rural areas, there has been a lack of transparency as to what the particular blockers are from a contractual point of view, despite a will from local authorities to progress those conversations and enable dispersal to take place. A genuine partnership of equals across UK Government, Local Government and the providers is required to enable a joined up response to the growing demands and changing needs associated with the asylum system.

 

Identifying and delivering appropriate accommodation

 

  1. With regard to DA, local authorities feed back to the accommodation providers, Mears, on the suitability, or otherwise, of properties by means of a procurement protocol. Over the last six months, an average of 50 requests for feedback on proposed properties have been received by Scottish local authorities each month. This is a significant jump from around 20 per month in the previous year. Mears have indicated that they are putting more resources into procurement of properties in Scotland and they anticipate another significant jump in these figures in the near future.

 

  1. There is a geographic imbalance in where Mears seek to procure DA. While the current housing crisis in Scotland undoubtedly contributes to a lack of suitable accommodation in different parts of the country, perversely it would seem that it is often those parts of the country that are facing some of the most significant pressures that are the focus for procurement. It would also seem that price is the main factor taken into account by Mears when seeking to procure properties, leading to a focus on areas that have more availability of relatively cheap property. Such areas can often face a variety of issues associated with deprivation or other socioeconomic challenges. This approach seems to run counter to the principles of an equitable approach to dispersal as laid out in the Home Office’s Full Dispersal plans.

 

  1. There is also a low percentage of potential properties that Mears go on to acquire further to the submission of requests for feedback through the protocol. For instance, while the level of attrition varies across the country, one local authority has reported that only one property was procured on the back of 60 protocol requests. The protocol requires a considerable amount of work for local authorities and their statutory partners to provide feedback at short notice, and there is often no meaningful response to any concerns raised or any indication if a property is still being pursued or not.

 

  1. The majority of the individual properties identified by Mears are deemed to be appropriate by local authorities, and an additional process which prompts one-to-one conversations with local authorities for properties with 10+ bedspaces is appreciated. However, where there is a significant difference of opinion between a local authority and Mears, there is an adjudication process undertaken by the Home Office. This is a departure from the previous longstanding approach taken in Scotland, which was agreement by consensus rather than the current process which has a presumption in favour of proceeding with procurement unless a high but ill-defined evidence threshold is passed. There is concern from local authorities that a lack of due regard is given to their feedback, while there have also been instances where the Home Office has disregarded issues flagged by Police Scotland and procurement has proceeded despite significant concerns. This approach adds to a feeling from councils that decisions are being made despite local authority and partner concerns and do not characterise a genuine partnership.

 

  1. In terms of Contingency Accommodation (CA), this was first introduced as a temporary or interim measure. However, hotels and other CA sites have now been in place in Scotland since 2021. There were a variety of responses from councils reflecting on the suitability of CA sites. Suitability or otherwise varied based on a number of factors, with location, such as the level of rurality, being crucial. Pressure on local services, access to and affordability of local amenities were also highlighted, as was third sector capacity in the context of a lack of funding for local authorities to provide significant support. In more rural or remote areas in particular, council officers found the location of CA sites to be a barrier to the third sector providing support. There has been some expansion of third sector support across the country, but without any funding, and a limited presence of expert organisations outwith the central belt, this is incredibly challenging.

 

  1. Experience thus far has shown that councils have very limited agency to prevent the use of CA if they feel that a site is unsuitable or problematic. While engagement takes place at a senior level in advance of hotels being used, and while this process has been improved and refined since 2021, the concerns of local authorities and their statutory partners tend to be noted rather than acted upon. Again, this calls into question the extent to which there is a partnership approach to the delivery of asylum dispersal.

 

Engaging and working with stakeholders

 

  1. Council officers raised both positive and negative points regarding their dealings with Mears. Broadly speaking, working relationships at a senior or strategic level appear to be constructive and multi-agency forums (MAFs) around CA sites have been well received. However, issues have arisen in terms of the on-the-ground situation in some hotels. Generally, Mears were considered good at working in partnership with local teams, communicating with local authorities and sharing information on numbers in hotels and expected discontinuations. However, some council officers did raise concerns that the information being shared was not accurate. It was also noted that, while MAFs represented good engagement and formed a basis for good working relationships with a range of stakeholders, they were not always productive or solutions-focused.

 

  1. MAFs with Mears, the Home Office, local authority colleagues, COSLA, health colleagues, police colleagues and other stakeholders do not exist on a systematic basis for DA properties at the local level. Other than the initial engagement when a property is being considered, there is very little engagement at the local level on active DA properties.

 

  1. Mears and the Home Office both attend Scotland’s Asylum and Resettlement Partnership Board (ARPB) and Delivery and Procurement Group (DPG). These are both fortnightly meetings that look at, respectively, strategic issues related to asylum and resettlement and operational issues related to asylum. This level of regular engagement is welcomed, as is specific outreach Mears’ partnership managers have been engaging in to build relationships with local authorities. However, the ability of Home Office representatives to meaningfully address the issues raised at the DPG is limited. This causes considerable frustration for local authorities when issues that are repeatedly raised by them are not resolved.

 

  1. Despite frequent engagement and some good working relationships, there can often be a sense that Mears, and the Home Office, are telling local authorities what is about to happen in their area as opposed to truly working in partnership, and in a transparent manner, with councils and other stakeholders.

 

Safeguarding and supporting the welfare of people in asylum accommodation

 

  1. There is a lack of clarity on safeguarding roles and responsibilities throughout the asylum process, including confusion on how to escalate concerns. This is a known issue across the whole of the UK’s asylum accommodation estate and is not limited to Scotland. It is being addressed by a joint Home Office / Local Authority Safeguarding Group, which includes Mears and COSLA representation, and which aims to produce a ‘roles and responsibilities’ document. While this is a welcome piece of work, it is somewhat concerning that the position is still unclear for many stakeholders several years into the current asylum contracts.

 

  1. There is an apparent disconnect between the welfare support offer for people seeking asylum in DA compared to CA. Some local health services are able to offer additional mental health support to CA sites and local authority officers are able to attend the sites to identify additional safeguarding needs that may require a referral. Local authorities and local health services do not have this level of oversight in the DA estate. Mears Welfare Support Officers (WSOs) are in frequent contact with service users in hotel sites and they are a near constant presence. Conversely, it has been indicated that WSOs attend DA properties monthly, unless an additional safeguarding concern was made clear at the outset of their asylum journey, and offer only referrals or signposting to support. Local authorities are not made aware of DA residents, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This leaves a significant amount of time for mental wellbeing to deteriorate and safeguarding concerns to arise.

 

  1. A significant number of age disputes have also been occurring in CA throughout Scotland. When asylum applicants in hotels or other CA sites identify as under-18, the local authority’s social work team must assess if the person is eligible for support. Some local authorities have noted that these cases represent between 10 and 15 percent of new arrivals into a CA site. Data is not held nationally on how many age-disputed asylum applicants are ultimately identified as Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC). However, many people arriving in asylum hotels are now in the care of the relevant local authority as vulnerable children. As well as placing a great deal of additional pressure on already strained council services, this has raised significant questions as to the robustness of Home Office processes at the point of arrival.

 

  1. A lack of clarity on the contractual terms between the Home Office and Mears means councils are unaware of what are considered the required minimum safety standards. For instance, there have been concerns about staffing levels in a particular rural CA site where there have been issue with Mears’ ability to recruit and retain staff, and to maintain a sufficient staffing presence on site at all times. This lack of consistency and staff shortages has meant that local authority officers have struggled to get answers to questions about on-the-ground operations and have not been confident that premises have been adequately staffed, leading to concerns about safety. Furthermore, Mears has been unable to provide local authority officers with a clear guide on what safe staffing levels should look like, including what the minimum ratio of WSOs to service users should be. The local authority in question had particular concerns about the safety and wellbeing of service users within that hotel site, but had no means of knowing if this issue was appropriately addressed under the contract and / or if staffing levels breached the contract.

 

Managing and sharing data

 

  1. Data sharing from both the Home Office and Mears is inconsistent and is a significant issue that needs to be addressed urgently to enable improved partnership working. An MOU between COSLA and Mears was signed in late 2024 to enable local authorities to receive a RAG-rated procurement pipeline for their area and a list of active properties. This enables local authorities to track their funding, minimise community cohesion issues by working immediately with newly accommodated asylum applicants, and perform their safeguarding duties where that is required. However, the agreement to share active property data was removed from the MOU after it was signed by both parties, and is still under discussion with Mears and the Home Office to seek to resolve. New arrivals information is already provided for CA sites and it is not clear why the same cannot be done for DA sites.

 

  1. There has been a significant piece of work done by Mears to standardise the information local authorities receive when there is a discontinuation notice for a newly granted refugee in their area. Prior to November 2024, this information came in different formats and contained different amounts of information, or missed vital pieces of information such as contact details. This information could be improved upon by sharing more information on health and wellbeing or issues that arose while service users were in Home Office accommodation, to enable local authorities to meet the needs of newly granted refugees to the best of their ability.

 

The impact of current arrangements for asylum accommodation on local areas

 

The Home Office’s approach to the distribution of asylum accommodation at a regional and local level

 

  1. Refreshed plans for Full Dispersal were presented to local authorities and SMPs in 2024, and the plans were agreed in principle by Scotland’s Council Leaders in June 2024. While there are significant concerns as to the scale of procurement that is required under the plans, and the deliverability of the same, it is welcomed that they seek to more fully account for other humanitarian protection schemes and local pressures. Similarly, there has been good engagement with the Home Office team to include appropriate Scottish datasets and they have been receptive to feedback and clear in their explanations as to why feedback has or has not been taken on board. Despite these positive steps in the right direction, there continues to be an unequal distribution of DA properties and ongoing long-term use of CA.

 

  1. The procurement of new DA properties has, thus far, been slow. While there are now existing properties or property pipelines in a majority of Scotland’s council areas, numbers remain relatively small for the most part and are very far from the aspirations set out in the Full Dispersal plans. There would need to be a significant increase in procurement for the numbers described in the plans to be credible during the remainder of the contract term. However, increasing levels of procurement need to be well planned and managed so that undue pressure is not placed on local communities and services over a short period of time. It is also vital that the expertise of councils and their local partners is fully considered in this regard.

 

  1. There has been an ongoing conversation about how to make rural procurement and delivery successful and how to acknowledge the specific challenges associated with rural or remote living. This is particularly important in Scotland due to the geographies of many of our councils. While conversations are ongoing there has been limited progress thus far, and little indication from the Home Office that they would be willing to embed a level of local flexibility into delivery. This rigid approach negates the expertise of local authorities in supporting their communities – including their role in the successful integration of resettled refugees across the country – and hinders the successful delivery of asylum accommodation in these areas. This, in turn, makes it harder for the Home Office to achieve the goals associated with the Full Dispersal plans.

 

  1. The current Full Dispersal plans do not include CA sites as it has been stated government policy to phase out the use of hotels for people seeking asylum. However, that has been notably slow to progress, and it is not clear when the next round of hotel closures may be. There is concern from a Local Government perspective about councils facing the dual pressure of both CA and DA in their areas without this being appropriately recognised, either in terms of the full dispersal plans, or with respect to the funding that they receive. It is unclear why there is a significant disparity in funding for local authorities depending on the type of accommodation as both CA and DA increase pressure on local services for indefinite periods of time.

 

The Home Office’s engagement and joint working with local authorities, local health services, NGOs and other local partners

 

  1. The Home Office has regular engagement with Scottish local authorities and COSLA at the ARPB and DPG meetings. These meetings include representatives from Police Scotland, Public Health Scotland and, on a quarterly basis, our third sector partners. This level of regular engagement is helpful in developing good working relationships and addressing concerns quickly when they arise. However, despite the regularity of this engagement, it is often felt that policy and practice are done “to” local authorities as opposed to being jointly worked through. This top-down approach is also replicated in engagement around data-sharing where local authority or SMP feedback is acknowledged but rarely implemented.

 

  1. At a local level, Home Office MAFs around contingency hotels are thorough and welcomed. Local authorities have indicated that they particularly appreciate having a single point of contact who is accessible and known. A number of local issues, such as a gap in a data system which meant approximately 100 residents were without Aspen cards, have been appropriately escalated and dealt with. Similarly, issues faced by struggling and over-stretched GP services have been fed back to the relevant Home Office team and have been factored into decisions on routing to CA sites. This feedback loop is welcomed and is a good example of joint working within the asylum space.

 

The impact of the current approach to delivering asylum accommodation on local services

 

  1. Asylum dispersal has a significant impact on housing and homelessness services in Scotland. There is a differential impact in Scotland as compared to other parts of the UK due to our differing legislative context and the additional responsibilities placed on local authorities as a result. In particular, there is no priority need associated with homelessness applications in Scotland, and there is therefore a legal duty to ensure that anyone who is made unintentionally homeless, including anyone with a positive decision leaving Home Office asylum accommodation, is owed the full housing duty from the local authority to which they apply. There is also no local connection provision in Scotland. This means that new refugees from across the UK can seek homelessness assistance in any local authority in Scotland.

 

  1. The impact of these provisions has been particularly significant in Glasgow, due to the scale of dispersal, as well as the large number of new refugees moving to the city from elsewhere in Scotland, and the UK as a whole. In addition, the discontinuations that resulted from the Streamlined Asylum Process have had a very a significant impact on housing and homelessness services in Glasgow, with the Council declaring a housing emergency in 2023. Approximately 2,500 newly granted refugees received decision in a very short period of time and this unprecedented pressure had a substantial financial impact on the council, running into many millions of pounds. No Home Office funding or support was offered to help mitigate or address this impact. This situation continues under the current accelerated asylum decision making process, with wholly unsustainable pressure still being placed on local services.

 

  1. Refugees are entitled, in specific circumstances, to apply for family reunion visas for their family members overseas. However, councils do not receive advance notification of family arrivals and this frequently requires them to source new accommodation at short notice. As above, impacts of this are particularly significant in Glasgow, although they will be replicated on a smaller scale in other Scottish local authorities. The continuing use of all single adult male contingency hotels in Scotland, as opposed to a more equitable spread of family DA sites or family hotels as exist elsewhere in the UK, means there may potentially be a disproportionate impact of family reunion in the coming months and years.

 

  1. Local authorities receive a small amount of funding to support their role in asylum dispersal. This is based upon net growth of occupied bedspaces and thus does not consider ‘churn’ as people move throughout the system and use services, potentially in multiple areas. Local authorities have highlighted that the most serious pressures are on health and social work services, with some additional pressures on education services. The use of CA exacerbates this impact as just one or two GP services may be responsible for providing support to 200+ new patients at short notice, and with the knowledge that more will continue arriving as there is movement in and out of a hotel. As referenced above, age disputes and age assessments are a significant pressure on the limited resources of local authority social work services, and can have a substant financial implication in cases that are subject to legal challenges.

 

The Home Office’s approach to working with local partners to support people who have been granted refugee status and are leaving asylum accommodation

 

  1. Support associated with newly granted refugees is limited and councils have not, as yet, received any funding to support the crucial role that they play post-decision. In Autumn 2024, the Home Office announced the introduction of Asylum Move-On Liaison Officers (AMLOs) to support local authorities and newly granted refugees through the move-on process. We have been told that staff have been recruited and training is ongoing. However, there has been no active AMLO presence on the ground in Scotland and no indication of any start date. Home Office staff have indicated these AMLOs will adopt a nuanced approach which recognises the need to avoid “one size fits all” thinking and respects local circumstances. This is welcomed but there is a need to speedily see UK Government support and funding for local authorities rolled out.

 

  1. The Home Office has indicated that £2.8million will be available to support local authorities move-on activities. This pot of money is to be distributed across all UK local authorities. Clearly, it will not address the scale of the financial impact of housing newly granted refugees – the entirety of the funding does not come close to addressing even the financial pressure faced by Glasgow alone. Nevertheless, it is welcome to see the Home Office recognise the scale of the challenge for local authorities and take some, if very limited, steps to address it. It is also welcomed that work is underway to ascertain the costs associated with councils’ participation in asylum dispersal and, indeed, the UK’s other humanitarian programmes. It is hoped that this will be the start of a conversation that results in sustainable funding being provided to local public services.

 

Conclusion

 

  1. Local Government in Scotland wishes to play its part in supporting the UK Government’s asylum dispersal policy, and a great deal of positive partnership work is ongoing across the country in this regard. However, the challenges that exist are significant and much work remains to be done to ensure that councils are able to participate in an equitable and appropriately resourced asylum system, and it is vital that a genuine partnership approach is embedded in relationships between UK and Local Government and the current accommodation and support providers.

 

Feb 2025