Special Grant Reports
The next item on the agenda is an evidence-taking session and debate on Special Grant Report No 1—Special Grant for Scotland Asylum Seeker Assistance (SE 2001/60) and Special Grant Report No 2—Special Grant for Scotland Kosovan Evacuees (SE 2001/61). We have been joined by Malcolm Chisholm, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, and his officials John Storey, who is the head of community care branch 5, and John Brownlie, who is Mr Chisholm's private secretary.
The minister will make some introductory remarks, after which I will open the session up to members for questions of clarification only. Have members got that? I will then move to a half-hour discussion on the reports. Although the standing orders say that we can have 90 minutes, I think that 30 minutes will probably be enough—and from the look on Kenny Gibson's face, I think that he probably agrees with me. We might need less time than that, but will take more time if we need it. I will then ask the minister formally to move the motions, and everyone can speak for and against them.
I will now ask the minister to speak and I repeat that any questions after that are for clarification and information only.
Will I speak to and take questions on each report in turn?
Yes.
This afternoon, we are considering two special grant reports. They have much the same purpose, which is to give the Scottish Executive authority to pay grants under two schemes to local authorities in Scotland. In each case, the Executive will reimburse local authorities for expenditure that they have already incurred during the course of the current financial year. In each case, funding has come from down south to meet the costs being incurred, so grant is not being met from Scottish Executive resources.
Special Grant Report No 1 deals with asylum seekers. As members know, new arrangements for support of asylum seekers came into effect in April 2000. New asylum seekers are supported by the national asylum support service, given housing on a no-choice basis and issued with vouchers and a small amount of cash for their immediate living needs. I know the views that many members have about that system, but that is beyond the scope of this report.
Special Grant Report 1 concerns asylum seekers who were here before April 2000. Historically, they have been supported by local authorities and they are still being supported by local authorities under the old system. The number of asylum seekers concerned was 610 at the end of January 2000, most of whom are concentrated in Edinburgh, which has 308 asylum seekers, and Glasgow, which has 225 asylum seekers. There are a further 77 asylum seekers outside the two major cities and, during 1999-2000, 19 other local authorities supported asylum seekers at one time or another.
The number of asylum seekers rose steadily during 1999-2000 and reached the January 2000 figure of 610. Our contacts with Edinburgh and Glasgow suggest that the number has remained at this level since. Those asylum seekers have applied to the local authority for support, given under powers in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to provide assistance to persons in need. Children of asylum seekers are also supported under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The expenditure that local authorities incur in this way has been reimbursed in previous years by the Scottish Executive using these same special grant powers.
We are operating in exactly the same way for 2000-01, although there is one difference this year. In the past, we have set grant at a maximum of £165 a person. For reasons that are not entirely clear, that has diverged from the limits applying in England, where reimbursement has been limited to a maximum of £140 for each adult asylum seeker and £240 for each family. Last June, we notified local authorities in Scotland that those rates would also apply here, and Special Grant Report No 1 brings that into effect from 1 July. We understand that Edinburgh and Glasgow, while not welcoming this change, can live with it.
We have £5.1 million available to pay grant under Special Grant Report No 1, and this has been transferred by the Home Office to the Scottish assigned budget. We expect that that will be sufficient to pay all grant claims in full.
I remind members that, at this stage, we are asking for points of information and clarification. This is not an opportunity for anyone to speak for or against a motion, which will be allowed under agenda item 5.
Is money that comes directly from the Home Office only for local authorities? If so, will there be additional moneys for the health service, for example? Obviously, in places such as Glasgow and Edinburgh that have a large number of asylum seekers, additional services might have to be funded. Will there be compensation for that from the Home Office?
That is outwith the scope of Special Grant Report No 1, which has nothing to do with the health service. It deals with money to local authorities.
I take it that you are talking about a sausage machine process with the same amount of money that is put in one end coming out of the other end. Is there a chance of there being a shortfall?
The Home Office decides how much can be paid for asylum seekers. Scottish local authorities put in claims and might not need to claim up to the full amount. Today, we are approving the maximum amount of money that can be paid for each asylum seeker.
I understand now.
You talked about 610 asylum seekers and said that the figure would remain roughly at that level. There has been quite a bit of speculation that the figure will rise significantly. If so, do you anticipate that there will be additional resources from the Home Office to meet the costs?
There has been a considerable increase in the figure over the past few months, and especially in the past few weeks. That is under the new system. Today we are discussing money for those people who claimed asylum before April 2000. The comparatively large increase—above 610—has happened under the new system. The funding of that will happen under a different system—that is well known—but we are not discussing that in the orders today.
Is £165 per asylum seeker adequate to meet all costs? You hinted that it was. Is there much room for manoeuvre there?
People made claims against that total until this year. Although the amount has been reduced by the Home Office this year, Edinburgh and Glasgow have been claiming less than the old maximum of £165, which is why they are saying that they should be able to manage with the new amounts.
You said that Edinburgh and Glasgow could live with it. What does that mean?
We have been talking to them. I undertake to keep doing so, because we want to monitor how the arrangement works. We have an indication that what they were paying out before was about £140—it may have been marginally more. I saw a note from Edinburgh that said that it was about 40p over that under the old system. That is the kind of figure that we are talking about. We will want to monitor how the new amounts work in practice, just as we want to monitor how the new system is working later in the year.
If there are no further points of clarification, I thank the minister for that and we move to the debate. Although we are allowed 90 minutes, I ask members to agree that we will not go over 30 minutes, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Malcolm, did you do both reports?
No.
It might be an idea to do the second one then. Sorry—I missed that.
I deliberately kept them separate because this one is quite different.
Special Grant Report No 2 will allow the Scottish Executive to reimburse local authorities for costs incurred in 2000-01 in looking after refugees from Kosovo—315 refugees arrived in two flights into Prestwick airport on 9 May 1999. A further 34 people arrived on a medical flight into Glasgow airport on 2 July 1999. All those who arrived were vulnerable, either because of age—there were elderly and young children—or infirmity.
Those who arrived were initially housed on a short-term basis in reception centres. Children began attending school almost straight away. One of the lessons that has been learned from previous evacuations is that refugees should move out into the community fairly quickly, so that they have a more independent life and do not become institutionalised. Consequently, most refugees moved on after about three months to more permanent accommodation, with some continuing support where that was needed.
A special grant report laid before the Parliament last year made provision for reimbursing local authorities for expenditure incurred in the previous financial year, 1999-2000. Following parliamentary approval of the report on 1 March 2000, claims totalling £2.33 million were paid by the end of that month. The special grant report that is before the committee today is the means by which additional expenditure incurred by local authorities this financial year will be reimbursed. It is similar to last year's report, with minor rewording to reflect the fact that the programme was in a return to Kosovo—rather than arrival—phase during the year.
The wide range of expenditure categories for which local authorities can claim are set out at paragraph 2 to annexe A of the report. All categories that remain relevant from the previous report are kept in place. I should make it clear that Home Office policy is that eligibility for grant does not extend beyond the initial one-year exceptional leave to remain in the UK that evacuees were granted. Consequently, paragraph 2 of annexe A of the report makes it clear that evacuees cease to be eligible for grant when their initial period of exceptional leave to remain has expired. For the bulk of evacuees to Scotland, that happened on 9 May 2000, or 2 July 2000 for those who arrived on the later medical flight.
We expect expenditure arising under this year's report to be a maximum of £800,000, payable to Glasgow, Renfrewshire and East Lothian. Some of that represents expenditure that was incurred last year but that was not claimed in time to make payment before 31 March. For example, expenditure of £171,000 by Glasgow falls into that category. I assure members that £800,000 is sufficient to meet both the remaining sums that are due for expenditure incurred last year and the additional expenditure that was incurred this year. Provision to cover those sums has been obtained from the Treasury's UK reserve.
As members have no points of clarification that they wish to put to the minister on Special Grant Report No 2, I ask whether they are happy to have a formal debate of a maximum length of 30 minutes on both reports. Please indicate clearly for the benefit of the official reporters.
Members indicated agreement.
We now move on to the formal debate of the first special grant report, but as no one wishes to question the minister further, I will ask the minister to move motion S1M-1601.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government Committee recommends that the Special Grant Report No 1 – Special Grant for Scotland Asylum Seeker Assistance (SE/2001/60) be approved.—[Malcolm Chisholm.]
The question is, that motion S1M-1601, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
As no one wishes to say anything about the second special grant report, I invite the minister to move motion S1M-1602.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government Committee recommends that the Special Grant Report No 2 – Special Grant for Scotland Kosovan Evacuees (SE/2001/61) be approved.—[Malcolm Chisholm.]
The question is, that motion S1M-1602, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Thank you.
We now move into private session. I will allow a minute for members of the public in the gallery and the official reporters to leave. I thank the official reporters for their work today.
Meeting continued in private until 18:20.