Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association (AAC0144)

Dear Dame Karen,

I would like to extend our thanks for inviting local government witnesses to present evidence at the Home Affairs Select Committee Session for the Inquiry into Asylum Accommodation on 29 April.

Below is a summary of some of our main reflections, concerns and key asks to help inform the next stages of your inquiry and some of the information we offered to follow up with.

1.             Equitable dispersal

Local government leadership remains committed to widening dispersal. Each council area has signed up to an allocation of asylum seekers via regional and national plans. Despite increases in the number of areas providers are procuring in, over recent years there has been continued inequitable dispersal across the UK

Existing inequities have been compounded by slow progress in achieving higher numbers in regional plans in areas with lower numbers.1 There is also slow progress in reducing pressures in other regions of high historic dispersal. We outlined that Glasgow is the local authority with the largest number of asylum seekers in relation to its population and is still 409 per cent over their dispersal plan. Seven local authorities in Greater Manchester are over their plans and three are more than 200 per cent over, with properties continuing to come online. Two London boroughs are significantly over their threshold, with Hillingdon is currently at 192 per cent of their plan.

Key impacts and drivers of those inequities include:

• Providers continuing to procure in the areas with the cheapest accommodation, with disproportionate pressures continuing to fall upon particular council areas. The price providers are willing to pay seems to differ across providers, compounding these inequities. This also tends to be in areas with ongoing economic deprivation and cohesion issues.
• This competition for limited housing can inflate the local housing market, with landlords ‘holding out’ for higher prices or other incentives or taking existing properties out of the market because they know that accommodation providers need to obtain accommodation and have lower standard requirements. This competition then can make the private rented sector unaffordable for existing residents or reduce availability of affordable accommodation.

• Funding to councils is only provided per new bedspace rather than per individual, which means the local impact of the movement of people through the system is not fully recognised.

• The use of contingency accommodation also places significant pressure in many areas. For example, London has 14,000 asylum seekers in contingency accommodation (CA) out of the over 30,000 nationally. This can however lead to the perception that many local authority

1 10 local authorities host 22 per cent of supported asylum seekers, Migration Observatory Analysis of Home Office Immigration statistics, July 2024

areas are ‘under-performing’ in respect to their agreed targets for dispersal accommodation (DA).

• Councils also see inefficiencies within the system. Providers are paying for voids as well as occupied bedspaces. Whilst national occupancy in contingency has increased to 82 per cent from 60 per cent of maximum capacity earlier in the year, this underoccupancy still impacts the need to open contingency accommodation in order to create a ‘buffer’ for anticipated increases in arrivals over the summer.
• Contingency accommodation procured at speed and in the short term due to lack of dispersal accommodation will be more expensive than sites procured in a planned and longer-term way. Sites intended to be short term but have become long term – for example, the East of England have one site still running that was first opened in 2021, and another 17 that have been opened since 2022.

In response councils would like to see:

• Joint work to ensure Home Office providers stick to agreed regional asylum accommodation plans both in terms of councils over and under plan.

• Joint work on finding solutions to barriers to procurement, including greater transparency on price points and other potential restrictions within current contracts, with these price limits currently regarded as too commercially sensitive to be shared.

• Contract pricing moving to reflect average Private Rented Sector (PRS) values within the market and within Local Housing Allowance levels.

• A measured approach to DA, procuring accommodation for single person households and not just families, reducing the risk of increasing single homelessness and adding pressure on outreach, day centre, hostel, and homelessness services.

• Joint work on increasing rural dispersal, exploring opportunities to explore new models for support services and flexibility within the current contracts.

• Building on the placed based Index now informing accommodation procurement, a place- based cross-system approach so that the cumulative impacts of the range of current asylum and resettlement programmes on councils are recognised.

2.             Asylum accommodation procurement and standards

We have seen positive developments around engagement at a national level2 but councils at a local level continue to report that decisions on procurement are done to them rather than with them. We highlighted the need for advance, early engagement with councils given their knowledge of their local areas, so that they have time to assess proposed sites, put support services in place and find alternative options if necessary. This includes sharing accommodation pipeline data in good time. Councils can have five days to respond to procurement requests which is insufficient time to conduct fire and safety assessments and for remedial work to be carried out. This will ensure focus on the right properties and help to avoid failure rates.

Councils also continue to share evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation, including examples of overcrowding, issues with damp and mould, and fire safety concerns. There are also cases where properties used for dispersal accommodation have been found to be unlicenced HMO properties. We would welcome further discussion on accountability and alignment between Home Office and local authority accommodation standards.

2 Asylum and Resettlement Ministerial and Local Government Forum

3.             Safeguarding and data-sharing

Councils continue to flag safeguarding concerns, particularly in hotels. Councils find that contracted and subcontracted staff working across sites have variable knowledge, experience and understanding of safeguarding arrangements and escalation. Councils have reported on the lack of referrals or slow responses to serious safeguarding-related concerns shared by councils, police and other partners. Home Office Assurance Teams can seem disconnected from sites, having limited awareness of safeguarding concerns and arrangements.

It is crucial to ensure regular site visits to mitigate safeguarding risks, but councils see significant delays to site visits even after serious concerns are flagged. Communication from Providers /the Home Office to councils can be inconsistent and sometimes lacking, which impacts on the statutory responsibility for local partners to assure themselves that effective safeguarding frameworks are in place. This means that councils have had to step in to improve safeguarding arrangements, including directly delivering training in accommodation, with that support unfunded.

There are also broader wellbeing concerns particularly in relation access to health and wellbeing, with examples of asylum seekers being malnourished and developing growth related deficiencies due to the lack of healthy food options.

As witnesses at the previous session stressed, the current system hasn’t been designed for people with multiple disadvantage, lived experience has not been considered and the service users voice is not heard in terms of the impacts.

The importance of improved integration with Safeguarding Adults Boards (and devolved equivalents) and better oversight in relation to safeguarding was flagged. The Home Office is working with local government to clarify safeguarding roles and responsibilities, safeguarding processes including referral processes into councils, steps for escalation, and training of staff and assurance/oversight. We would like to see greater urgency on this given councils’ ongoing concerns.

Further conversations are also needed around data sharing across the asylum estate to ensure safeguarding risks are minimised and any safeguarding concerns are immediately shared and addressed.

In general, data-sharing practice is inconsistent, with disparate processes and data sharing protocols across providers. Councils need to have consistent appropriate personal data of asylum arrivals in dispersal and contingency accommodation so they can effectively support them and uphold statutory duties. Early notification of projections of summer arrivals also would help councils plan for the coming months.

4.             Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC)

We shared serious concerns in relation to age assessments and age disputes for unaccompanied children in adult asylum accommodation. As flagged at the session, data collected by the Helen Bamber Foundation via Freedom of Information requests for January to June 2024 showed that at least 262 children had been wrongly placed in adult accommodation or detention at significant risk across 63 councils in England and Scotland.

These children who are later identified do not count towards a council’s assigned number of UASC that they are expected to accept through the National Transfer Scheme (NTS). This means that some councils have had to find upwards of 20 additional homes for UASC in addition to those they are asked to accept through the NTS, placing yet further pressures on placement, funding, workforce, and support capacity. The Government must ensure that unaccompanied children

placed by the Home Office into adult hotels and subsequently identified by councils count towards a local area’s NTS allocation, to help manage local system capacity.

It is also vital to ensure appropriate funding for UASC and former UAS care leavers up to the age of 25, or 26 in Scotland. Furthermore, all the points above around safeguarding oversight and provision are also vital to ensuring identification and support of age disputed children and we also discussed addressing the lack of contractual requirement to retain separate bedrooms where there are age-disputed cases in adult hotels.

London Councils is calling for local authorities to be automatically notified if someone claims to be a child at port of entry, but Home Office decide to place the individual into adult accommodation, to mitigate the heightened risk of exploitation and safeguarding issues and all in line with local authority duties to investigate under the Children’s Acts.

5.             Asylum Accommodation Move on

Councils have welcomed the temporary extension to 56 days for those receiving an asylum decision and having to leave asylum accommodation as something the sector has been calling for some time.3 We are keen to see a permanent extension in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act to allow refugees to access housing, unlock employment opportunities and receive Universal Credit.

However, the impact has been varied, with some council areas still seeing the 28 day move on period in place. Also, there has been a significant rise in the number of homelessness presentations in Glasgow, with over half the homeless population in temporary accommodation being newly granted refugees. In London, Greater Manchester and other cities there are also significant pressures and steep increases in rough sleepers who are newly granted refugees moving on from asylum accommodation.

Whilst we all welcome clearing the backlog to provide people with their asylum status, it needs to be carefully managed in collaboration with councils to avoid a repeat of previous costs and pressures related to large numbers of people receiving their asylum status and presenting as homelessness. There has been limited funding (£2.8 million across the UK) for eligible councils for their role in supporting move on and we would welcome engagement with the sector in co- designing any future funding.

Crucially, the move on time period is just one aspect of the asylum decision making process. Further work is needed alongside this to create sustainable resettlement pathways and housing solutions as people transition out of the asylum system. We are keen to work with government on an end-to-end person-centred approach to support that avoids the current ‘cliff’ edge when asylum seekers receive an asylum decision, and clarity on shared responsibilities for supporting move on and wider integration. This would also involve preparing people for negative decisions and the appeals process to avoid destitution risks.

6.        Cohesion and integration

Councils across the country have used and are using their community leadership role to bring communities together in the aftermath of the violence last summer. Ongoing and expanded council funding for asylum seekers and ensuring advance engagement on accommodation procurement could effectively support local capacity to integrate asylum seekers, foster welcoming communities, and reduce risks of violence.

3 Moving on from asylum accommodation: The impact and learning from councils on the asylum backlog clearance | Local Government Association

Residents do not distinguish between Home Office, Accommodation Providers and councils, and the perception is that these decisions on inappropriate sites have been made by Local Authorities, partly due to a lack of clear communication and engagement strategy. The perception for existing residents also can be that those being dispersed are receiving something that they cannot access. Councils are keen to support individuals add value how they contribute to the communities they are accommodated in, providing vital preparation for integration, supporting meaningful use of time and alleviating the increased likelihood of modern slavery, unofficial working or exploitation.

Access to ESOL classes should be factored into planning from arrival, ensuring greater emphasis on supporting integration and preparedness pending asylum decisions.

We understand that cohesion data factors are now a greater feature of the asylum accommodation index which is welcome. We are keen however to work with the Government on how to best use local data and intelligence to assess any cohesion risks of any new or existing accommodation.

7.        Current housing supply issues and future approaches to accommodation and support

We welcome using the run up to the end date of the current contracts in 2029 and a break clause from 2026 to test different approaches to asylum accommodation and support. The LGA outlined the key principles that need to underpin further developments in its written submission to the Committee.4 This includes a focus on improving the current system, and tackling some of the inherent challenges in the current approach as highlighted above.

Any pilots need to be part of further and wider systemic reforms to address the chronic shortage of affordable accommodation across the country5 and unprecedented pressures on temporary homelessness accommodation.6 In September 2024, there were 5,819 households in temporary accommodation in Greater Manchester and 856 of those were in B&B – an increase of 1262 per cent since 2010.

There are also significant risks given the serious issues with accommodation supply, combined with lack a of funding and capacity. The LGA is keen to work with government on key risks, opportunities and parameters to mitigate these risks.

These pilots may present opportunities to councils such as to bring back into use properties in need of refurbishment for both asylum-seekers and those in general housing needs. It also provides opportunities for central government for more effective use of its current spend. We have suggested joint work across local and central government to explore how to increase the supply of sufficient and appropriate accommodation for all groups of new arrivals. This approach to increasing housing supply should build on learning from the Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF). This has enabled councils to increase their social housing stock to accommodate Afghans, Ukrainians and the wider homelessness populations. However, this funding has been available in England only and similar funding needs to be available to councils across the UK.

Councils continue to report concerns with the current support contracts, and we welcome the introduction of ‘support only’ pilots as an opportunity to develop a new approach to wellbeing, safeguarding and accommodation standards, move on and wider integration.

We are also keen to move away from crisis management to appropriate long-term resourcing and joint work. A key message from the session was the need to see more co-production and proper joined up working across councils, Strategic Migration Partnerships, the local government associations, the voluntary and community sector and those with lived experience to create a more joined up, place-based approach to asylum accommodation.

4 LGA submission

5 Spending Review: £76 million funding gap in councils' temporary accommodation budgets | Local Government Association

6 ibid.

As part of this, given the pressing issues, ongoing cohesion challenges and the acute shortage of housing across the country outlined above, we would welcome further work with government to identify clear steps on moving to a national, regional and local place-based approach that and across all schemes that welcome new arrivals to the UK.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Peter Mason

Deputy Chair, LGA Board, Local Government Association (LGA) and Leader, London Borough of Ealing

Also sent on behalf of:

Cllr Paul Dennett

Deputy Mayor, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and Mayor, Salford City

Natasha Beresford

Interim Strategic Director – Housing & Property Services, Dacorum Borough Council

Cllr Maureen Chalmers

Member of South Lanarkshire Council, COSLA Spokesperson for Community Wellbeing

June 2025