Recommendations & Conclusions
7 items
1
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Home Office (the Department) about asylum accommodation and support services in the UK.2
Government response AI summary
The government's response acknowledges the committee's report, stating it is the government's official response to the findings.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
As well as call volumes, we asked whether the AIRE service had underestimated the length of each call. The Department had historical data that suggested calls would take between 12 and 17 minutes. In contrast, Migrant Help based its bid for the AIRE service on an average call length of …
Read more
As well as call volumes, we asked whether the AIRE service had underestimated the length of each call. The Department had historical data that suggested calls would take between 12 and 17 minutes. In contrast, Migrant Help based its bid for the AIRE service on an average call length of four minutes, and the Department accepted the bid on this basis.12 As a result, the AIRE helpline did not have the capacity to deal with the number of calls it received, answering only one-fifth of the calls it received between September 2019 and January 2020.13 We received written evidence from Asylum Matters, which told us that many asylum seekers and their caseworkers had lost confidence in AIRE and simply stopped calling.14 The Department explained that as the AIRE provider accumulated more data from issue reporting, its call speed has got quicker.15 In its written evidence to us, Migrant Help also told us that it had carried out a large recruitment and training programme.16 The Department explained that the performance of the AIRE service had since improved, and it was now regularly meeting 11 of its 12 key performance indicators. 9 Q 117 10 Qq 126–128; C&AG’s Report paras 17, 4.11 11 Qq 71, 86–87 12 Qq 92, 94–95; C&AG’s Report, para 2.13 13 Q 71; C&AG’s Report, para 12 14 ASY0006 - Asylum Matters 15 Q 92 16 ASY0001 - Migrant Help Asylum accommodation and support transformation programme 11 The Department said that in July 2020, the AIRE service answered 95% of calls within 60 seconds, against a target of 90%.17 The cost of the new service
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response, despite stating agreement with a 'recommendation,' discusses considering future models for asylum seeker accommodation and improving current contracts, including recovering from pandemic impacts. It does not specifically address the committee's observations regarding the AIRE service's call capacity, underestimated call length, or its …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
The Department expected providers to be able to share data as part of the new contracts, to make sure they are providing the service expected for asylum seekers. The contracts required an automated link for issue reporting between the AIRE provider and the accommodation providers.23 However, the NAO found that …
Read more
The Department expected providers to be able to share data as part of the new contracts, to make sure they are providing the service expected for asylum seekers. The contracts required an automated link for issue reporting between the AIRE provider and the accommodation providers.23 However, the NAO found that this had not been in place and instead providers had to rely on workarounds such as reporting issues by email, which were inefficient and more prone to errors. The NAO concluded that this lack of integration meant providers could not provide an efficient service for asylum seekers.24 The Department accepted that automated links had not always been available early on in the contracts, but told us that information was still being shared and that it had agreed a workaround with providers. It said that it was still its firm intention to ensure that information was shared in an automated way and that work was underway to improve the 17 Q 72 18 Q 97 19 C&AG’s Report, paras 8, 2.4 20 Qq 96–97 21 Qq 119–122 22 Qq 99, 116 23 Qq 104–105 24 Qq 105–106; C&AG’s Report, paras 13, 3.6 12 Asylum accommodation and support transformation programme automated sharing of data.25
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response discusses improving general engagement mechanisms with stakeholders and developing a Directorate Engagement Strategy, but it does not address the Committee's specific conclusion regarding the lack of automated data sharing links between AIRE and accommodation providers.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
We examined the Windrush scandal in March 2019 and found that the Department lacked understanding of the needs of applicants for compensation, did not monitor the impact of its ‘compliant environment’ policy on vulnerable members of society and had not done enough to identify people that might have been affected. …
Read more
We examined the Windrush scandal in March 2019 and found that the Department lacked understanding of the needs of applicants for compensation, did not monitor the impact of its ‘compliant environment’ policy on vulnerable members of society and had not done enough to identify people that might have been affected. We recommended that the Department must set out how it intended to incorporate information collected from people affected by the compliant environment system, not just those administering it.29 The Department committed to ensuring the lessons learned from the Windrush scandal are applied across the whole of the Department. This included listening to the people most affected by the Department’s policies and operations and consulting with a wide range of people and organisations.30
Show less
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
The Department explained that its aim was for as few service users as possible to be accommodated in hotels and that those who do spend as little time as possible in hotels once they are there.37 The Department expected providers to move people with straightforward needs into dispersed accommodation within …
Read more
The Department explained that its aim was for as few service users as possible to be accommodated in hotels and that those who do spend as little time as possible in hotels once they are there.37 The Department expected providers to move people with straightforward needs into dispersed accommodation within 35 days of their arrival.38 In its letter to us after our evidence session, the Department told us that on 1 October 2020, 428 school-age children had been in hotels for longer than 35 days.39 The NAO found that the Department penalises providers for each accommodation request and move every month that exceeds agreed timescales, rather than each day, and so providers may not be incentivised to move people out of hotels or initial accommodation once they had been there for longer than 35 days.40 We asked the Department why it had allowed this to be the case. The Department said that providers need to consider the vulnerabilities and support needs of individuals, meaning that it was not always appropriate to prioritise those asylum seekers that have been in hotels the longest.41
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response commits to reducing and ending routine hotel accommodation use by procuring more dispersed accommodation and moving on those with concluded asylum claims. However, it does not specifically address the committee's observation regarding provider incentives or the penalty structure for lengthy hotel stays.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
The Department told us that it currently accommodated asylum seekers in hotels in approximately 50 local authorities. It noted that whenever it arranges for a hotel to be used for asylum accommodation, it instructs its relevant teams to contact the local authority and MP affected. We were therefore concerned to …
Read more
The Department told us that it currently accommodated asylum seekers in hotels in approximately 50 local authorities. It noted that whenever it arranges for a hotel to be used for asylum accommodation, it instructs its relevant teams to contact the local authority and MP affected. We were therefore concerned to hear of instances where colleagues had not been informed that asylum seekers were being accommodated in hotels in their constituencies. Instead, they had found out through Twitter or the local press.47 In its written evidence, the British Refugee Council asserted that while the accommodation contracts require providers to engage the relevant local authority and police force when procuring new properties to house asylum seekers, there was no similar requirement when providers used hotels as contingency accommodation.48
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response discusses improving general engagement mechanisms with stakeholders and local authorities. However, it does not specifically address the Committee's concern about the lack of timely notification to local authorities and MPs regarding the use of hotels for asylum accommodation.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
Twenty-Fifth Report - Asylum accommodat…
Not Addressed
The Department told us that 429 asylum seekers had been tested for COVID-19, 122 of whom had tested positive.63 In its letter to us after our evidence session, the Department further explained that of those that had tested positive, 29 asylum seekers were in hotels.64 The Department also told us …
Read more
The Department told us that 429 asylum seekers had been tested for COVID-19, 122 of whom had tested positive.63 In its letter to us after our evidence session, the Department further explained that of those that had tested positive, 29 asylum seekers were in hotels.64 The Department also told us that 750 individuals were self-isolating and 348 shielding.65 It recognised that it had been difficult to manage asylum seekers in hotels amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and described how one provider, Serco, had brought in more security and worked with the police and local authority in Birmingham to improve compliance with social distancing requirements.66 The Department said it had been discussing with Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care regarding how, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to safely stop support for asylum seekers who are no longer eligible. It explained that Ministers had been clear that this must be done in a way that was “careful and phased”.67
Show less
Government response AI summary
Although the government states it agrees with the recommendation (despite the item being a conclusion), its response focuses on reducing and ending the routine use of hotel accommodation and increasing dispersed accommodation, rather than addressing the specific observations about COVID-19 testing, management difficulties during the …
Read full response →
HM Treasury