17 Rejected

At the outset of Everyone In, the Department gave a clear message to local authorities...

Conclusion
At the outset of Everyone In, the Department gave a clear message to local authorities that, as this was a public health emergency, they were to bring everyone in (“whether they are from Bromley or Portugal”), irrespective of immigration status or entitlement to benefits.62 At the end of May, however, this messaging became more ambiguous, with the Department writing to local authorities to remind them that they could only legally accommodate people who were ineligible for benefits following an individual assessment of risks to life.63 The Department denied that it had in mind a particular number, in terms of a reduction in support for people with no recourse to public funds, that it wanted to achieve by sending this letter.64 From this point, however, the support offered by different local authorities to these cohorts of people became increasingly divergent, with some ceasing to take in new people or seeking to move on those who were already in emergency accommodation.65 The Department implied to us that this divergence purely reflected the differing progress of the pandemic in different parts of the country, rather than differing approaches taken by local authorities within the same area and faced with similar levels of demand.66 Some local authorities, meanwhile, experienced difficulties in supporting people from these cohorts to move into more settled accommodation, because of their ineligibility for benefits: this meant they were unable to receive Local Housing Allowance and other assistance to move into the private rental sector, for instance.67 Baroness Casey confirmed to us that, under current rules, local authorities were unable to help these cohorts of people to move into more settled accommodation.68 At the end of September, there were around 2,000 people staying in hotels and other emergency accommodation in London 57 Qq 25, 5. 58 Q 3. 59 C&AG’s Report, para 2.10. 60 Q 33; C&AG’s Report, para 2.10. 61 C&AG’s Report, para 2.10. 62 Q 44. 63 Ministry of Hous
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with the committee's assessment regarding ambiguous messaging and difficulties in supporting individuals with no recourse to public funds (NRPF). It reiterates that existing rules for NRPF individuals have not changed, and local authorities are responsible for individual assessments, while also highlighting the Home Office's Rough Sleeping Support Service.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government Rejected
5.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 5.2 The government is fully committed to ending rough sleeping. The department will be working with partners across government to build on recent progress and consider what more needs to be done to end rough sleeping, which will consider the role of immigration policy and practice. 5.3 This will build on work, such as the Rough Sleeping Support Service, which has been established by the Home Office to help destitute individuals access support and resolve their immigration status. 5.4 In the meantime, the department continues to work with the Home Office on all other immigration issues affecting rough sleepers. 5.5 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 5.6 The department has and continues to work with local authorities regarding support that can be offered to those individuals with a no recourse to public funds (NRPF) attached to their immigration status. Ultimately, these are locally elected councils and it is a matter for them to decide based on their local circumstances. 5.7 On 28 May 2020 and 8 January 2021, the department wrote to all chief executives of local authorities making clear that the rules as to eligibility relating to immigration status, including for those with NRPF, have not changed. The department’s position remains that local authorities must continue to use their judgement in assessing what support they may lawfully give to each person on an individual basis, considering that person's specific circumstances and support needs. The department is clear that the responsibility for making individual judgements lies with local authorities, as it has done for many years. 5.8 This legal position is applicable to support offered to individuals with NRPF both within and outside of hotels under Everyone In.
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age 5.4 yrs
Report published 17 Mar 2021