NRPF `Cost Implications for Local Authorities Report'
Background:
A copy of the report is attached (see Item 2, Annex A).
The report states that 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. Local authorities receive no funding from central government for these costs.
The key recommendations in the report are that in order to minimise this expenditure, the UKBA should work in partnership with local authorities to resolve cases by 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 to seek employment or mainstream benefits. In the interim, local authorities should be reimbursed for the expenditure they incur whilst fulfilling their statutory duties to people who have NRPF.
On the 20th February, representatives from the NRPF Network, the LGA and DCLG met with Lin Homer, the Chief Executive of UKBA, to further discuss the recommendations in the report. On the 29th April, the NRPF Network and the LGA received a response from Lin Homer outlining UKBA's position regarding the recommendations. A copy of the response is attached (see Item 2, Annex B).
2. UKBA position outlined in the response
The response from Lin Homer states that local authorities will not be reimbursed for the costs they incur supporting NRPF clients:
“…the priority must be to tackle the problem at source by addressing the presence or status in this country of the individuals concerned rather than perpetuating and risking exacerbating the problem by making specific additional financial provision for local support services for this category.“
The response does acknowledge that UKBA need to work closely with local authorities to identify NRPF clients that should be assisted to return to their country of origin or have their immigration case resolved. The Local Immigration Teams (LITs) are cited as being a key mechanism for this co-working between UKBA and local authorities.
The response also states that the Home Office has the legal power to fund local authorities directly to carry out assisted voluntary returns (AVR). However, in order to assess whether bi-lateral agreements between UKBA and local authorities to carry out this work should be considered, UKBA will first work with the International Organisation for Migration (the organisation currently funded by the government to carry out their AVR programme) and the NRPF Network to try and improve the Assisted Voluntary Return Programme.
3. Key Issues
The commitment from UKBA to work with local authorities to try and find a sustainable resolution to NRPF cases is welcome. Discussions regarding the improvement of the Assisted Voluntary Returns (AVR) programme between the UK Border Agency, IOM and the National NRPF Network are also welcome and are due to take place in the very near future.
However, the key issue remains that many local authority supported NRPF cases cannot be removed by UKBA despite having had a resolution to their immigration status e.g. the situation in their country of origin is still too dangerous to facilitate returns, there may not be a safe route of return, they cannot obtain travel documents or they may be too ill to travel etc. As a result, local authorities are often placed in the position of having to support NRPF clients indefinitely whilst receiving no reimbursement for the costs they incur for providing this support.
These particular individuals are classified as `no recourse to public funds' directly as a result of the immigration status placed upon them by central government but the cost of supporting these individuals arises from the statutory duty placed on local authorities for which they receive no reimbursement. An argument can therefore be made that this is a national issue and as such, costs should be met by central government and not fall on local authorities, particularly as some local authorities have higher concentrations of NRPF clients than others. If funding is not made available, the costs might potentially have to be met through cuts to local services or increases in council tax.
The Taskgroup therefore needs to consider what course of action should be taken regarding the reimbursement of NRPF costs. Several potential policy positions are outlined below (although there may be other viable alternatives that can be discussed at the meeting):
1. The LGA request a full reimbursement from central government for all NRPF costs incurred by local authorities. Reimbursement should be backdated from the date that support started.
2. The LGA request a reimbursement scheme whereby local authorities agree to work with the UK Border Agency to find a sustainable solution to each local authority supported NRPF case but, if at the end of that process the individual cannot be removed or granted some form of immigration status, the local authority is either:
a) reimbursed from that point on for any future support costs incurred or
b) provided with back-dated reimbursement for all of the costs incurred for that individual from the date that support originally started.
3. The LGA request a partial reimbursement of all NRPF support costs. Reimbursement should be backdated from the date that support started.
4. The LGA request a partial reimbursement scheme similar to that outlined in option 2 above i.e. local authorities agree to work with the UK Border Agency to find a sustainable solution to each local authority supported NRPF case but, if at the end of that process the individual cannot be removed or granted some form of immigration status, the local authority is either:
a) reimbursed from that point on for a percentage any future support costs incurred or
b) provided with back-dated reimbursement for a percentage of the costs incurred for that individual from the date that support originally started.
If there is support for the partial reimbursement option, the NRPF Network and LGA would consult with their respective members to agree what percentage/level of reimbursement would be acceptable.
2. Recommendation
That the Taskgroup endorse and adopt a policy position with regard to the reimbursement of the costs incurred by local authorities for the support of NRPF clients.
Ian Beattie
LGA
LGA Asylum and Refugee Task Group Item 2
|
18 June 2009, LGA |
1