Agenda item

A briefing to the Committee to update on the ongoing partnership response to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including broader lessons learnt for crises response.

The Programme Director for Partnerships & Delivery gave a presentation on the council’s response to the ‘Ukraine crisis’.

The Committee heard that:

a.    The council’s response comprised two main schemes – ‘Homes for Ukraine’ and ‘Friends & Family’ – although there were other relevant pre-existing schemes and statutory duties, such as in respect of homelessness, access to education and safeguarding. The council’s main additional duties were in relation to Homes for Ukraine.

b.    The county began receiving refugees within weeks of the programmes being announced.

c.     The government set local authorities’ duties in relation to Ukrainian refugees and provided significant funding. Leading a whole-system approach, the council had worked with lower-tier authorities to apportion responsibilities based on who was best placed to deliver them, as national guidance was unclear on the delineation of responsibilities between local authorities in two-tier areas. Further to its pre-existing duties, the council was responsible for conducting checks on the suitability of accommodation and safeguarding which included a Disclosure and Barring Service check on hosts, providing information and guidance, support with community integration, and administering funding to hosts, guests and partner organisations.

d.    The system was developing further support for refugees, including rematching capabilities, seeking to streamline processes and providing a regular information bulletin to hosts.

e.    Things which had gone well to date included that the council was able to rapidly implement an effective multi-agency response following the county’s response to the covid-19 pandemic; the council’s leadership and delivery of programme management, data management and customer services functions while recognising the specialities and capabilities of lower-tier authorities had been critical; joint leadership of the response by senior county council and lower-tier officers ensured shared ownership and accountability; joint communications and stakeholder engagement had enable clear and consistent messaging which helped maintain confidence; and early involvement of the voluntary and community sector had been highly beneficial. 

f.      Key reflections included that new and different requirements on the local system are expected and government viewed local government as a trusted and capable area of delivery – however, this required the council to maintain response capacity and adaptability for medium- to long-term situations; practical data, systems and technology capabilities which enabled faster data sharing would benefit joint capacity to respond to events; and it had been challenging to manage public expectations when government announcements preceded the issuing of guidance and direction.

g.    A tracking tool enabled the council and partners to monitor people’s progress through the resettlement process. There was not a significant issue in respect of refugees going missing.

h.    The number of visa applicants had stabilised, the number of Ukrainian refugees in Oxfordshire was not so significant as to overburden public services in the medium to long term, and national feedback indicated that refugees largely wished to return home once possible. Meeting refugees needs upon arrival was the greater challenge, although there were concerns in respect of social and health service capacity to support them in the longer term.

i.      The council’s response had resulted in additional pressures on services, despite the provision of additional resource. Social services, for example, were diverting resources away from lower-priority work to meet the needs of refugees.

j.      There had not been a significant number of placement breakdowns, although there had been cases where accommodation was not deemed suitable once a refugee was already on the way to the UK. A process to address such issues – rematching capability – was being developed under the leadership of Oxford City Council. A Member highlighted that residents had told them that better public transport services in rural areas could alleviate pressures on placements; the Programme Director was to escalate this.

k.     Housing, employment and English language tuition were issues to be addressed to enable refugees to transition to independent living should the war in Ukraine continue in the medium term.

l.      There was sufficient capacity within the education system within the county; however, there was insufficient capacity in certain areas and in certain year groups.

m.   Earlier in the year, the Programme Director had led work to conserve institutional learning. The council should develop capability to respond to new emergencies and an overview & scrutiny committee may wish to review this.

The Deputy Chair suggested that in the future the Committee may wish to consider rematching, school placements, the impact of refugees on service capacity and finances, and emergency preparedness.  

A Member highlighted that it could be useful for the council to maintain a register of the staff with emergency management capabilities.

ACTIONS –

The Programme Director for Partnerships and Delivery to raise with the Community Team the potential benefits of providing transport solutions to Ukrainian refugees accommodated in rural areas.

RESOLVED – That approval be given to the Chair and Deputy Chair agreeing draft recommendations via email, in consultation with the Committee.