Agenda and minutes

None.

Agreed as a correct record.

It was agreed that all items of business were considered in public.

Members should bring their 24 September 2009 Cabinet agenda.

Members should consider any other decisions published in the five working days before this meeting.

The purpose of this meeting is to decide whether to refer back any decision to the decision-maker.

Members gave consideration to the Cabinet reports of 24 September 2009 and after careful consideration Members decided not to call-in any decision made by the Cabinet at their meeting.

However, officers were asked for clarification and the background on the following two issues:

Item 16 - Council Budget - Month 4  - Asylum Funding

Question

From previous Cabinet reports, Members have been aware of the issues the Borough had with the lack of funding the Council received from central government in relation to asylum seekers. Could Members be provided with a chronology of the sequence of events and any government changes which have led to the Council being in this position, and also what were the chances of the Council getting back the expected £1.6m - £2.8m shortfall in funding? 

Subsequent to the meeting Members were provided with the following response from officers:

[Hillingdon a unique case – Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC)

Hillingdon is home to the world’s busiest international airport – Heathrow which presents the local authority with some unique challenges in relation to the provision of support for unaccompanied young people entering the UK seeking political asylum.

At any one time the London Borough of Hillingdon acts as the corporate parent to around 1,000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children under the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. The council provides accommodation, schooling and disability support etc.

The result is that for every 100 indigenous LAC the borough has responsibility for a further 62 UASC and the accompanying additional costs which far exceed the norm for a borough this size. The general Rate Support Grant regime is geared towards funding authorities for the cost of indigenous LAC rather than UASC. As a result authorities such as Hillingdon do not receive funding through the general grant regime but are reliant on a satisfactory specific grant regime being in place for UASC.

This is not a responsibility that Hillingdon resents and the local authority provides crucial support services for many vulnerable people.  Professionals providing this support to young asylum seekers are some of the most experienced in the UK.

Funding implications

Problems arise from inadequate funding support from central Government particularly in relation to the 600 eligible young people (greater than 18 but less than 25 years of age) leaving care. The government pays Hillingdon £100 towards the actual support cost of £194 per equivalent client week. The government does not contribute towards the 50 clients who have exhausted all appeals, nor the 30 clients who have become ineligible because they are no longer in full time education, nor the 47 naturalised citizens who may not yet be included in the population statistics and hence not taken into consideration when calculating the RSG grant.  

The shortfall in grant funding for asylum has meant that we had a historic funding deficit of £14.6m up to and including 2007/08 with an additional shortfall of £3.7m in 2008/09 making the total shortfall £18.3m at the end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.