Agenda item

Purpose: To present the Healthwatch report on the experience of asylum seekers in West Berkshire.

Councillor Steve Masters declared an interest in Agenda Item 12 by virtue of the fact that he had helped conduct interviews with the refugees, but reported that, as his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Martha Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 12 by virtue of the fact that she was a member of the Board of Healthwatch West Berkshire and she had helped conduct interviews with the refugees, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Dr Heike Veltman declared an interest in Agenda Item 12 by virtue of the fact that she was employed by the GP practice that cared for guests in one of the refugee hotels, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Healthwatch Report on Asylum Seekers was presented by Sarah Deason (Business Development Manager, The Advocacy People).

The report made a number recommendations for Health and Wellbeing Board partners and other agencies. It was acknowledged that some issues related to national policy and Home Office responsibilities. The Board agreed that supporting asylum seekers was important, but stressed that the Home Office was the key agency.

Officers provided an update on the latest position in the hotels being used to accommodate the refugees. A recent visit had found everything to be working well. Food quality had improved and guests’ preferences and dietary needs were catered for. Guests appeared to be well-settled in the hotels - although some guests had been there a long time, there was a reasonable turnover as individual refugees were processed. They were respected in the community and were integrating well.

It was explained that the Council had a limited role, which was confined to statutory duties (i.e. safeguarding, education, environmental health and health and safety). A core group of officers had been set up to coordinate activity, with representation from the ICB, Public Health and Thames Valley Police. Individual cases were discussed, but there had been relatively few issues.

Public Protection had statutory responsibilities for health and safety and food safety. Incident logs were inspected as part of any visits. Issues previously raised in relation to food and access to toiletries had been addressed. Responsibilities between the Home Office and hotel owners had been clarified.

Thames Valley Police were reviewing social media posts in response to local newspaper articles. While there was evidence of low level hostility, no criminal offences had been committed and the situation would be monitored.

The following points were made in relation to the report’s recommendations:

1.     Provision of Information – As part of the hotel induction process, booklets with relevant information were provided. There were also information posters on the walls.

2.     Manage Migration Systematically – A core group of officers regularly met to discuss statutory duties and to review individual cases. Sensitive information was discussed at these meetings, which would limit outside involvement. An officer had been appointed to oversee migration in the District and would be reviewing relevant processes.

3.     Improve Food and Nutrition – This was a Home Office responsibility. Officers were content that food quality had improved, but could not comment on nutrition. Special dietary requirements were accommodated.

4.     Community Outreach – It was stressed that there was no access to public funds to provide such support.

5.     Monitoring of Women’s Health and Safety – This was primarily a Home Office and NHS responsibility, but the Police and Environmental Health may be involved if appropriate.

6.     Provision of Activities – There appeared to be a good range of activities and local community groups were involved. There were no outstanding requests for support to the Council in this respect.

7.     Ensure that Children Can Continue in Schools – This was a Home Office decision, but so far there had been no children taken away from local schools.

8.     Regular Independent Wellbeing Survey – Checks were carried out by the hotels in relation to food aspects and they also talked to the guests. It was suggested that wellbeing issues would be picked up by GPs.

9.     Effects of National Polices and Issues – There was little that could be done by Health and Wellbeing Board partners other than monitoring.

It was confirmed that officers would look at the recommendations in the context of their statutory functions to see what improvements could be made.

It was noted that responses from the Council, NHS, Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust, and the Police had been included in the report.

It was felt that the Healthwatch report had sharpened the focus on the hotels and service providers, and provision had improved as a result.

It was suggested that the lack of communication from the Home Office in the initial few weeks had brought out the best and worst in the local community. A question was asked about the ability of the Police to monitor community sentiment and to respond to serious incidents. It was confirmed that monitoring was ongoing. Each hotel had a nominated contact officer who undertook regular liaison. A force-wide plan was in place to respond to any protests and demonstrations. However, there had been little cause for concern locally, apart from a low-level of activity in the initial weeks.

Clarification was sought as to additional funding to support the Council in discharging its statutory functions. It was confirmed that there had been an initial one-off contribution.

It was acknowledged that the Council had limited responsibilities for refugees, but it was suggested that it should be an advocate for all members of the community.

Issues were highlighted in relation to female refugees. Many were skilled and wanted to be part of the community, but concerns were raised that they did not have the same volunteering opportunities as the men. It was acknowledged that the local community response had been largely positive.

It was noted that there had been little notice given by the Home Office about where refugees would be accommodated and so support agencies were not prepared. Refugees were from a range of countries and initially there had been language barriers. The situation had improved since the early weeks, which had followed on from the pandemic, but there were still opportunities to improve.

It was acknowledged that there were issues around access to health services (e.g. language barriers when access services over the phone) and there were opportunities to do more than provide written information.

While food quality and nutrition had improved, the food was quite different to what refugees were used to and expected.

From a women’s health perspective, it was recognised that there were cultural differences that needed to be taken into account.

Boredom was a key issue and the voluntary sector had made a real difference in interacting with the refugees.

It was noted that the ICB was planning a series of ongoing assurance visits to the refugee hotels, which would be coordinated with partners.

With regards to the report’s recommendations, it was suggested that there was a distinction to be made between acknowledging the issues and being able to commit to the actions that were recommended, which may not always be feasible or the best option. All proposals would be considered and would be taken into account when developing solutions to address the identified issues.

It was noted that Healthwatch would be undertaking a formal follow-up review after three months.

The Chairman proposed a motion to:

a)    Note the report

b)    To consider the report’s recommendations and for each of the relevant partners to respond to Healthwatch regarding the actions they would be taking in response to the report.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty.

The Chairman invited Members of the Health and Wellbeing Board to vote on the proposal. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED to:

a)    Note the report

b)    To consider the report’s recommendations and for each of the relevant partners to respond to Healthwatch regarding the actions they would be taking in response to the report.