link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 9
CONFIDENTIAL
No Recourse to Public Funds: Financial Implications for Local
Authorities
Jonathan Price and Olvia Fellas
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................1
2. Summary of key points ................................................................................2
3. Background to NRPF ...................................................................................2
4. Research methodology ................................................................................3
5. Findings .......................................................................................................4
6. Conclusions .................................................................................................6
7. Recommendations .......................................................................................7
8. Acknowledgements......................................................................................9
1. Introduction
The No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Network aims to highlight the
practical and policy issues of NRPF and works in partnership with the UK
Borders Agency, the Local Government Association, London Councils and
other representative agencies to reach resolutions to these issues.
This piece of work has been undertaken by the NRPF Network as part of its
grant agreement with the UKBA.
Local authorities are increasingly concerned about the financial implications of
supporting individuals who have no recourse to public funds (henceforth
NRPF). This report collates data on the numbers of people being supported
by local authorities and the associated expenditure by those authorities in
carrying out their duties under community care and childcare legislation.
This report aims to:
• demonstrate in financial terms the impact of the no recourse to public funds
policy on local authorities and council tax payers across the UK;
• collate accurate data on the numbers of people who have NRPF being
supported by local authorities across the UK;
• examine basic trends in numbers and costs;
• make recommendations to the UKBA on how to alleviate this burden on
local authorities and reach sustainable solutions.
1
link to page 2
2. Summary of key points
During the financial year 2007/08, at least
£33.4 million was spent by 48 local
authorities supporting individuals and families who have no recourse to public
funds. This is an
increase of 8% on expenditure incurred in the financial year
2006/07.
At least
3910 individuals were being supported by 48 local authorities during
the financial year 2007/08. This is an
increase of 3.6% on the figures for the
financial year 2006/07.
Local authorities receive no funding for these costs from central government.
These costs are met from local council taxpayers. These figures are
concerning for local authorities, particularly because costs appear to be
increasing.
The key recommendations of this report are that in order to minimise this
expenditure, the UKBA should work in partnership with local authorities to
resolve cases through exploring options to return individuals and families to
their countries of origin or by granting status to those who cannot be returned
thereby entitling them seek employment or mainstream benefits. In the
interim, local authorities should be reimbursed in full for the expenditure they
incur fulfilling their statutory duties on people who have NRPF.
3. Background to NRPF
‘No recourse to public funds’ applies to a person who is subject to immigration
control; does not have the right to work;
1 and has no entitlement to welfare
benefits, public housing or Home Office asylum support.
NRPF affects a wide range of people who are subject to immigration control,
including refused asylum seekers, visa overstayers, post-18 former
unaccompanied asylum seeking children and victims of domestic violence in
the UK on spouse visas. Many of these people are, for a variety of reasons,
unable or unwilling to return to their countries of origin.
Case law has ruled that those who are destitute and in the country lawfully are
entitled to local authority support where they are assessed as being in need of
care and attention (National Assistance Act, 1948) or, if they are in the
country unlawfully, where it would be a breach of their human rights to
withhold or withdraw support (Human Rights Act, 1998). Individuals with
mental health problems, physical health problems (including HIV), older
people and those suffering domestic violence may be entitled to local
authority services. In addition, support may be provided by a local authority to
a family under the Children Act 1989 where a child is found to be a child in
need due to destitution.
The local authority has a duty to provide accommodation and subsistence
payments, and any social care required. Rates for subsistence payments are
1 People granted leave as spouses or civil partners are permitted to take up
employment
2
link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3
set by the local authority and accommodation rates vary for each client
(depending on the individual property and whether the client has any special
requirements) and for various locations across the UK.
The NRPF Network was established in 2006 to:
• share information and good practice amongst local authorities in this area;
• to work with government departments to raise the practical and policy issues
of NRPF;
• to facilitate reimbursement for local authorities of the cost of providing
support to people with NRPF; and
• to develop a strategic response to people with NRPF.
2
4. Research methodology
In September 2007, the joint ADASS / ADCS
3 Asylum Taskforce contacted
Local Authority Chief Executives across the country and asked them to
nominate a lead contact that could provide data on NRPF clients supported by
each authority. They were subsequently sent a spreadsheet on which to
record the data.
The greatest numbers of service users with NRPF are likely to be supported
by local authorities in cities, large towns, asylum dispersal areas and those
with a major port of entry within their boundaries. The researchers ensured
that these key areas were contacted. Key dispersal areas were determined by
identifying authorities that were supporting in excess of 400 asylum seekers
(accommodation
and subsistence) at the end of December 2006.
4
Forty-eight local authorities provided data for this report, covering the vast
majority of urban authorities with social services responsibilities. Eleven
additional authorities reported no expenditure.
Limitations of data
The figures provided in this report represent the minimum likely expenditure
and numbers of NRPF individuals being supported as the sample represents
only roughly 30% of local authorities with social services responsibilities in
England, Wales and Scotland. Although the researchers feel that the
authorities with the highest likely costs are included, a few were unable to
provide data.
A standard spreadsheet was created on which to record data, however it is
possible that some costs were recorded differently. For example, costs for
adults who have children may have been included under Section 21 NAA
1948 instead of Section 17 Children’s Act 1989. However, this should not
affect the overall figures.
2 For more information, see
www.islington.gov.uk/nrpfnetwork
3 Association of Directors of Adult Social Services / Association of Directors of
Children’s Services Asylum Taskforce. The NRPF Network is a sub-group of the
Asylum Taskforce.
4 Home Office Asylum Statistics 2006,
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1407.pdf
3
link to page 4
Expenditure is defined for the purposes of this research as accommodation
and subsistence costs. This does not include expenditure relating to staff time
(casework, social work, legal costs and interpreting) and medication or
additional health-related costs. These costs can be substantial. The
researchers felt that for the purposes of this research, calculating these costs
would be excessively complicated and inconsistent across local authorities.
The figures provided here therefore provide the minimum total
expenditure incurred by local authorities in supporting people who have
NRPF. 5. Findings
There are 204 local authorities with social services responsibilities in England,
Scotland and Wales (150 in England, 32 in Scotland and 22 in Wales).We
received data from 48 local authorities that were supporting clients who have
NRPF: 44 authorities in England, two from Scotland and two from Wales. All
but one of these local authorities are in urban areas. Twenty-eight of these
authorities gave data for both adult and children’s services; 13 gave data for
adult services only; and four gave data for children’s services only. Three
authorities provided total figures without disaggregating into children’s and
adult services.
• The minimum figure for expenditure on NRPF individuals in the financial
year 2007/08 was
£33.4 million. The minimum number of NRPF individuals
being supported during this period was
3910.
• The minimum figure for expenditure on NRPF individuals in the financial
year 2006/07 was
£30.7 million. The minimum number of individuals being
supported during this period was
3769.
• Eleven authorities reported no expenditure on NRPF individuals. All but one
of these authorities were in less densely populated areas.
• The unadjusted average local authority expenditure on an individual who
has NRPF in 2007/8 was
£8,537 per annum.
5 • Expenditure rose by
8% from 2006/7 to 2007/8.. The increase in
expenditure reflects the increase in numbers being supported, the increase in
the number of families being supported and the increase in accommodation
and subsistence costs.
5 This does not take into account the differences in expenditure across local
authorities in terms of subsistence payments and accommodation costs
4
link to page 5
2006/7
2007/8
Number of adults supported
2,296
2,246
Number of children supported
1,264
1,415
TOTAL NUMBER SUPPORTED
3,769
3,9106
Expenditure under Section 21 NAA 1948
£19,779,722
£20,572,461
Expenditure under Section 17, Children’s Act 1989
£9,482,811
£11,394,084
Expenditure not disaggregated
£1,430,327
£1,414,702
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
£30,692,860
£33,381,247
Numbers of adults being supported decreased slightly (by 2.2%), whilst
numbers of families being supported increased more dramatically (by 10.7%).
The table and graph below illustrate the range of expenditure by local
authorities, demonstrating that the burden does not fall equally across local
authorities.
A greater number of authorities were spending larger sums in 2007/8 than in
2006/7. Most notably, the number of authorities spending between £1m and
£2m per annum rose from ten to 12, whilst those spending between £1,900
and £250,000 per annum dropped from 15 to 12. One authority reported no
expenditure in 2007/8 because all of its cases were resolved as part of the
case resolution programme.
Number of authorities
Expenditure
2006/7 2007/8
£2 - 3.6 million
2
2
£1 - 2 million
10
12
£500,000 - £1million
10
10
£250,000 - £500,000
11
11
£100,000 - £250,000
6
4
£1,900 - £100,000
9
8
No Expenditure
11
12
Total 59
59
6 These figures include the numbers supported by two authorities that did not
disaggregate figures for adult and children
5
14
12
s
10
thoritie
8
u
2006/7
6
2007/8
r
of a
4
Numbe
2
0
ture
Expendi
o
N
Expenditure
6. Conclusions
A key principle of asylum policy between local and central government is the
recognition that this is a national issue. As such, costs must be met centrally
and not fall entirely on local authorities and council tax payers.
Increases in demand for services and expenditure on clients who have NRPF
is of great concern to local authorities, as this results in funding being diverted
from core services to meet this unfunded but statutory cost..
Local authorities are also concerned about the impact of the NRPF policy on
community cohesion. Anecdotal evidence from local authority members of the
Network indicate the effects of destitution socially are: increased poverty;
street homelessness; illegal working; vulnerability to sexual exploitation;
increased criminal activity; increased health risk; and increased mental health
difficulties.
The figures detailed in this report are significant and have a real impact at a
local level, materially and symbolically. It is compounded by the fact that this
expenditure is partly unnecessary. The NRPF policy has not proved to
systematically induce individuals and families to return to their countries of
origin; many choose to stay in the UK either lawfully or unlawfully, despite
having NRPF. Essentially, this situation arises because people are not
removed at the end point of the asylum / immigration process.
There needs to be agreement in how to find case resolution on legacy cases
and other complex ‘destitute plus’ cases that local authorities are supporting.
These cases can be resolved, either by returning people to their countries of
6
origin at the end of the asylum / immigration process if it is safe to do so, or by
granting people temporary or indefinite leave to remain, thereby entitling them
to mainstream benefits. Part of the solution however is to recognise that
removal (voluntary or enforced) is not an option in a significant number of
cases and that leaving people destitute is not in the interests of broader social
protection policy. This would free individuals from a state of limbo, enabling
them to continue their lives either in the UK or abroad and have the right to
work and live dignified lives. It would also significantly reduce the financial
burden on local authorities and council taxpayers.
7. Recommendations
(i) Reimburse local authorities
Central government should reimburse local authorities the expenditure
incurred on supporting individuals and families who have NRPF, pending their
removal (if enforceable) from the UK. Reimbursement should form part of a
strategic response to NRPF, which should focus principally on finding
sustainable solutions to people’s situations.
Reimbursement should cover all costs including accommodation and
subsistence costs, and direct support costs such as staffing.
(ii) Work with local authorities to issue detailed guidance on eligibility for local
authority assistance
The UKBA should work with local authorities and the NRPF Network to
develop detailed guidance to local authorities on their duties to provide
services to people with NRPF. This would ensure consistency across local
authorities and also that authorities are fulfilling their statutory duties.
(iii) Work with local authorities to find sustainable solutions
The UKBA has begun preliminary work with local authorities to seek
resolutions to individual cases being supported by local authorities. Objectives
have been set to identify and conclude cases, taking enforcement action
where practicable or granting status to cases in accordance with their policies.
These objectives have been set out as part of pilot partnerships with local
authorities in the UKBA’s Enforcement Strategy.
Authorities collect considerable amounts of information on clients whilst
supporting them. The UKBA should use this to inform decision-making and
help find sustainable solutions to individual cases. Furthermore, the UKBA
should consider adopting a casework approach to address individual cases
being supported by local authorities in order to reach these solutions more
efficiently.
To assist with resolution, cases can be grouped according to immigration
status:
•
Legacy cases being supported by local authorities Legacy cases being supported by local authorities should be prioritised as
part of the case resolution programme currently being rolled out by the UKBA.
7
link to page 8
Information about clients held by local authorities can be used to determine
the best option for individuals and families, whether it is to grant Indefinite
Leave to Remain (ILR) or to return individuals/families to their countries of
origin.
•
Victims of domestic violence on spouse visas
The NRPF Network is in discussion with the Domestic and Sexual Violence
Unit of the Home Office regarding retrospective funding for those whose
applications for ILR under the domestic violence rule is successful (for
accommodation and subsistence pending the outcome of the application).
Issues remain however for victims of domestic violence who cannot make an
application for ILR under the domestic violence rule because they have been
in the UK on a spouse visa for over two years. Consideration needs to be
given to either:
a) extending the eligibility criteria for the Domestic Violence Rule (DVR) to
include all women fleeing domestic abuse; or
b) ensuring a mechanism of processing the application for ILR within the
same timelines as that applied to processing DVR applications.
7
•
Refused asylum seekers and visa overstayers with care needs Local authority support is the final resort for those who are unable or unwilling
to return to their countries of origin but have care needs. This is however an
unsustainable situation.
There are some individuals and families whose removal from the UK is
unenforceable on account of a physical or mental health problem, and in such
cases the UKBA should consider granting leave to remain, and therefore
entitling them to work or access mainstream benefits.
In cases where travel documents cannot be granted, the UKBA should
reimburse the local authority for continuing to provide support to the individual
until such time that travel documents can be granted.
In cases where return is an option, the UKBA should work with local
authorities to seek the best solution for individuals and families. Ideally this
would be through assisted voluntary return programmes.
(iv) Revise proposals to extend category of NRPF to include those legally
residing in the country.
The recent Border and Immigration Agency Green paper
‘Path to Citizenship:
Next Steps in Reforming the Immigration System’ proposes a new stage prior
to a migrant’s entitlement to permanent residence entitled ‘probationary
citizenship’. During this stage, migrants will have no recourse to public funds.
This policy will have substantial implications for local authorities.
The NRPF Network recommends that the new rules exempt migrants who
have community care needs from requiring to demonstrate their ability to
7 According to UKBA, DVR applications are processed within 20 working days.
8
link to page 9
support themselves without recourse to public funds. Migrants with community
care needs should also remain entitled to mainstream benefits and local
authority housing during the probationary citizenship stage.
8
8. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the 59 local authorities and the officers that provided
data for this report and the UKBA for their continuing financial support to the
NRPF Network.
8 A more detailed response to the Green paper can be accessed using the following
link:
http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/HealthandSocialCare/Pdf/nrpf_
path_citizenship.pdf
9
Document Outline
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
