Response of UASC Reform Steering Group to
Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking
Children
1 Introduction
1.1
This document sets out the initial response of UASC Reform Steering Group to the
Home Office’s consultation paper
Planning Better Outcomes and Support for
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. The Steering Group consists of the
following agencies:
Association of Directors of Children’s Services
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services
Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru
Local Government Association
London Councils
National Consortia Co-ordinating Group
Welsh Local Government Association
Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
The response also has been informed by contributions from the:
Refugee Council
Office for the Children’s Commissioner
1.2
We welcome the publication by the Home Office of the consultation paper. The
need for a fundamental review of services for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking
Children (UASC) has been evident for a long time. Local Government recognises
and supports the decision to seek to reform the current system, which is outdated
and under-resourced.
1.3
It is imperative that the Home Office maximises the current consensus across
agencies in seeking reform to the UASC ‘system’ and ensures, with the Department
for Education and Skills (DfES), that this is linked to improvements for children in
care generally. A service framework needs to be established that is applied
consistently and which recognises that UASC are children first and foremost but
that they may have particular needs that differ from those of other looked after
children (LAC).
1.4
The Home Office needs to work with local, regional and national agencies to turn
the proposals outlined in the document into a workable reality and learn appropriate
lessons and difficulties from the ‘dispersal’ of adults and families.
1.5
However, until a resolution is found to the current conflict with local authorities
bearing the cost of post 18 care, local authorities are unlikely to be in a position to
co operate with any pilot schemes.
Page 1 of 26
1.6
The response to the consultation questions are given in section 6 below. However,
there are significant issues of policy and practice that lie outside of the consultation
questions which also need to be addressed if any changes to support are to be
effective:
• The link to the
Every Child Matters agenda, including the DfES Green Paper
Care Matters, which
was
concerned with improving outcomes for children in
care.
• The impact of the New Asylum Model/Approach (hereafter NAA)
• Funding, including support and funding arrangements for those over the age of
18 including eligibility for leaving care services
• The effectiveness of enforcement and removals and the relationship of UASC to
the Enforcement Strategy
• Trafficking and missing children
• The differences in legislation across UK
1.7
The key points of the response can be summarised as:
•
That the issues that lie outside the consultation questions need further
exploration and full resolution, developed in partnership with all key
stakeholders.
•
The current conflict between immigration legislation and children’s rights
legislation needs to be reconciled to focus on the needs of the child.
•
There needs to be further detail and clarity about how the proposed
system would work in practice.
•
If then agreed, this approach would need further discussion and piloting
with local authority practitioners.
•
Fundamentally, given the lack of incentives, particularly around funding,
for local authorities to participate in this scheme, there is a question as to
whether the proposals will work in practice.
•
Destitution should not be used as a pressure to ensure UASC are returned
to their country of origin when it is against the best interests of the child.
Other Issues
2. Links
with
Every Child Matters and Care Matters
2.1
It was unfortunate that
Care Matters was not more explicit about the circumstances
of UASC and, in particular, did not discuss the similarities and differences between
UASC and other LAC. Like most other LAC, UASC have experienced
disadvantages that have led to them becoming ‘looked after’; equally, the majority
are seeking to benefit from the opportunities available to them and are unlikely to
become involved in the criminal justice system (Professor Mike Stein, York
University, November 2006). The key principles outlined in the Green Paper are as
applicable to those children who have entered the UK as UASC as they are to those
children normally resident in the UK who have had to enter the care system. We
believe that provision should be based on the needs of the child rather than
immigration status, in line with good childcare principles and practice.
Page 2 of 26
2.2 In
addition,
Care Matters and
Planning Better Outcomes and Support for
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children also vary in emphasis. This leads to
tensions between the two which need to be acknowledged and addressed. The
consultation paper does not fully explain or justify the difference in treatment
between UASC and other looked after children for whom Local Authorities are a
corporate parent.
2.3 For
example,
Care Matters suggested that LAC should be able to remain in foster
care until the age of 21, whilst the consultation document suggests that the majority
of UASC will be expected to live independently from the age of 16 or 17. This
apparent commitment to the provision of foster care for looked after children, so
long as they want it, is in the context of a funding regime that does not meet the
costs of such a placement.
2.4
The consultation paper also does not reflect or address the policy complexity and
conflict of the government’s own immigration and childcare legislation which local
authorities currently operate within. Support for UASC needs to be driven by the
needs of the child and child welfare considerations. It is disappointing that despite
its title, the Home Office consultation has not explicitly outlined what outcomes for
UASC it is aiming for. The consultation makes brief mention early on that outcomes
for UASC must be those of
Every Child Matters (ECM
), applying to all other
children. We agree with this completely but it is disappointing that, despite the title
of the consultation paper, ECM principles and outcomes do not receive greater
prominence, for example, by highlighting the outcomes and aims particularly
relevant to UASC.
2.5
The other crucial element in ECM principles is that the ethos of approach must be
child-centred and focused on their welfare, well-being and outcomes as the first
concern. We feel that the consultation does not acknowledge that the child or
young person’s needs must be central to service provision suitably enough in its
proposals. For example, there is barely any mention of the requisite mechanisms,
not simply to gain information from children and young people about their
backgrounds or to inform them of what is happening to them but to genuinely gain
their views about what their aspirations are what they want to do and achieve. In
this regard we note that Article 3.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration”. We would want to see clear regard given to the views of individual
UASC, clear mechanisms for how these views are elicited in the context of wider
children in care and that those views are genuinely taken into account in the way
outcomes and services are framed for them (UNCRC Article 12).
3.
New Asylum Approach (NAA)
3.1
Broadly speaking, we welcome the key principles of the NAA which should lead to a
faster and fairer system, superior quality of decision making and much needed
clarity of ownership and individual case responsibility to the processing of asylum
applications from UASC.
Page 3 of 26
3.2
Unfortunately, the significance of the impact of and the interrelationship between
the minors’ segment of the NAA and UASC reform is not as clearly set out as it
could have been. It is essential that the NAA as applied to UASC fits into child care
planning and the role of the Local Authority as corporate parent. The speed at
which the NAA and, more specifically, with which the Minors Segment has been
developed has meant that alignment and synergy of the two projects has not been
adequately created. We remain concerned at how future alignment may be
managed, pending the outcomes of this consultation and any subsequent changes
in the process of supporting UASC.
3.3
We have a number of concerns about the implications of the timescales for
immigration issues on UASC, particularly on those who have experienced
significant trauma in their country of origin. We are also concerned about the speed
with which the new approach has been implemented, the extent to which
immigration staff have been properly prepared for their new role and the lack of
consultation with partner agencies on the wider implications of these changes. The
need to ensure that UASC cared for by local authorities see their case-owner in a
timely manner and are age-assessed as quickly as possible, is likely to impact on
staff resources. This will be an additional task for the proposed ‘specialist
authorities’, yet it is not referred to in the consultation. We also have concerns that
health services have not been worked into screening arrangements.
3.4
NAA will require that UASC have ready access to specialist legal advisors who may
not readily be available in the ‘specialist authorities’. We have significant concerns
about the ability of UASC to access appropriate legal advice both in the context of
their immigration and care status. The Legal Service Commission published its
final
immigration and asylum fee schemes in March 2007 which stated that an update on
developing services for UASC can only be given to stakeholders once UASC
Reform proposals have progressed sufficiently; it is not clear therefore, who is
leading on the development of legal aid for UASC and what happens to UASC that
are currently in the NAA system.
4.
Funding Arrangements
General
4.1
The assertion that the £140 million per year is spent to support 6,000 UASC (given
in Chapter 4 para 65) seems a very high spend and would require further
explanation. This equates to approx £23k per child per year or approx £450 per
child per week.
4.2
The assumption that the transfer of large numbers of UASC to other areas of the
country should deliver significant cost savings (as outlined in Chapter 4 para 66)
also requires further explanation. It would be helpful to have access to the
information that supports the table of average weekly payments. Whilst it is
accepted that housing and related costs are higher in London and the South East,
the table does not appear to take account of the needs of the individual UASCs
being supported, which will have potentially significant implications for the level of
payments made. We accept that some savings would be likely. However, it is not
clear what is meant by substantial and over what time period.
Page 4 of 26
On the basis that authorities would continue to support the UASC they currently
support, it is difficult to envisage a situation where cost savings will be realised
quickly. It would also be useful to clarify whether any new funding arrangements
assume any level of savings and if so, what that level is.
4.3
The consultation is based on the premise that the number of UASC claiming asylum
is static. We need to know on what grounds this is assumed, and if the process for
UASC is flexible enough to adapt to changing levels of claims, either in increasing
or decreasing numbers. This will be vital in order to encourage volunteers to
become ‘specialist authorities’.
4.4
Although the Consultation states that, "unlike many other countries, UASC are
supported under the same legislative arrangements as indigenous children,"
(Chapter 2 para 11) the same is not true for the funding arrangements which are
fundamentally different. Whilst it is not necessarily appropriate for the same
assumptions to be used in arriving at the funding formula for UASC, there does
need to be a fundamental review of the current arrangements, given that unit
costs are based on historic recorded expenditure.
4.5
The consultation provides an opportunity to address the current range of
mechanisms that have to be used in order to recover costs incurred. Any new
funding formula and its associated payment arrangements need to resolve the
current situation local authorities are presented with, whereby the grant regime has
to be supplemented with the special representations process.
4.6
The consultation paper does not specify what alternative mechanisms might be
used for the provision of funding for UASC under the age of 18. The current
assumptions are extremely crude when determining costs relating to those UASC
who are under 16 and those who are 16/17. The assumptions take little if any
account of care needs that may not necessarily change on the UASC's 16th
birthday. This is therefore out of line with the ECM and
Care Matters agendas.
4.7
This dialogue must be in the context of continued full funding for the level of service
provided within best value principles and not an attempt to shunt a part of the cost
onto local government. We would not support a proposal that sought to separate
the funding arrangements from the actual volume of service provided by any
authority. The grant settlement also needs to have regards to variations in regional
costs, volume and availability of foster placements.
4.8
We also feel it is important for the review to consider the impact of UASC upon
other areas of service, particularly health, education and translation services. We
are not aware of any significant funding for these services to meet specific needs of
UASC, particularly language and mental health issues, which place significant
burdens on already overstretched resources. We would strongly advocate a holistic
analysis of need, capacity and cost prior to any recommendations being made.
4.9 We support better joint working principles between central and local government as
outlined in the consultation. However, we firmly would recommend consideration
also is given to better co-ordination across government departments as a necessary
outcome of this review. This is a cross-government issue that requires a joined up
response.
Page 5 of 26
This could entail consideration being given to placing the responsibilities for the
grant mechanisms for all UASC/former UASC within a single government
department, to avoid the current separation/inconsistencies. However, overall, what
is most important is that there are sufficient resources available to cover the costs
of the services provided and that the resulting provision meets the needs of
children.
4.10 Funding for asylum support should not be rolled into the general grant settlement.
Separate identifiable funding streams can be used to recognise the actual costs of
supporting UASC and ensure local authorities are fully funded for a central
government policy.
Funding arrangements for those post 18
I
ssues with current arrangements
4.11 The judicial review of the London Borough of Hillingdon (2003) led to an increase in
the numbers of UASC receiving leaving care support. These proposals do nothing
to resolve the current funding short falls for the support of existing UASC care
leavers aged 18 plus.
4.12 The need for sufficient funding arrangements to cover the costs incurred by local
authorities for the provision of services to UASC post 18 (as care leavers) is a
matter of considerable importance because of the funding shortfalls experienced by
many authorities. We believe that the numbers eligible will continue to increase
until 2008, although not at the same rate as they have done previously. In 2005/06,
the authorities included in the LGA/ALG survey forecast a total expenditure of £40.3
million. Using the current allocation formula, this would require funding from DfES
of £15.8 million, giving a shortfall of £24.5 million. However, if the DfES uses
current guidance and caps funding at a maximum of £11 million nationally, there will
be a total shortfall of £29.3 million for those surveyed. It is expected that total spend
is expected to increase to nearly £50 million in 2006/07.
4.13 We welcome the continuation of cross-government Ministerial-level discussion on
this issue.
Issues with future arrangements
4.14 We note that one of the objectives of the NAA is to ensure that all asylum
applications from young people will have been dealt with by their 18th birthday. The
effect, therefore, would be that by their 18th birthday, all UASC would either have
been successful in their asylum applications, returned or been removed.
Otherwise, they would have exhausted all appeals and technically be illegally in the
country. As the consultation paper points out, they should then have no recourse to
public funds and specifically, to leaving care support.
However, it should also be noted that local authorities are supporting increasing
numbers of individuals who have no recourse to public funds and that as part of
this, that there are already a number of former UASC in this position that local
authorities have continued to support within the leaving care legislation, post 18.
Page 6 of 26
The current proposals may serve to magnify this problem. If it is the intention of the
NAA and the consultation paper to resolve the funding of post 18 support by
confirming removal of entitlement, then it is essential that Local Authorities are not
left open to judicial challenge. Local Authorities should be
fully funded for the
support they will no doubt continue to provide for those who are no longer entitled to
support.
There must be absolute clarity as to the nature of the Section 4 (S4) support to be
provided to “failed asylum seekers” and mechanisms put in place to deliver that
support, pending any arrangements for a return to the country of origin. As noted
above, the resolution of this matter should not be left to individual authorities
becoming the subject of judicial reviews in pursuit of clarity.
4.15
The failure to resolve these funding issues would be a major impediment to the
proposed creation of ‘specialist authorities’.
4.16 It should also be noted that large numbers of destitute young people are likely to
have a deleterious effect on community cohesion within local areas and this must
be taken into account. It is also feared that without receiving any support, there will
be no incentive for previous UASC to remain in contact and they will simply
‘disappear’.
4.17 However, if the Home Office is considering changes in primary legislation to resolve
these issues, then there must be strong justification for this. Any new guidance or
legislation must be in line with children’s rights and safeguarding legislation. We
would welcome further discussion with the Home Office on this issue.
5. Other
Issues
5.1
The effectiveness of enforcement and removals
The ability of enforcement and removals to encourage - or to forcibly return - UASC
to return to their country of origin has historically been a weakness throughout the
entire asylum process. We remain unconvinced that this situation has been
improved enough to safeguard children and ensure they do not disappear prior to
return or indeed that they return to a safe and secure environment.
The outcome of decision making on asylum applications is beyond the scope of the
consultation paper. We also recognise that some asylum applications will not be
successful and that those applicants may be returned to their country of origin.
However, we are concerned that UASC should have an adequate opportunity to
make representation in support of their applications and, should they be
unsuccessful, are treated in a humane and considerate manner in which
safeguarding considerations are to the fore. These processes must be underpinned
by the principles of children’s rights legislation such as the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the Children Act 2004 and the Children (Scotland) Act 2005.
The Home Office must apply appropriate tracking and monitoring mechanisms to
support children returning to a country of origin to ensure they are not placed in any
form of danger and are transported safely (see Q11.2- 5 below on safeguarding).
Page 7 of 26
5.2
Trafficking and missing children
There is a need for greater clarity about how many children enter the UK through
what routes to differentiate between children who are smuggled in with no ulterior
motives and those who are trafficked in with the intention of exploitation. The Home
Office also need to be in a position to track children who are returned to ensure they
do not re-enter the trafficked cycle once again, either within the UK or elsewhere.
Home Office sources of information and intelligence need to be improved in order to
identify children should they try to re-enter the UK.
Whilst a great deal of expertise around trafficking has built up in authorities with
high numbers of UASC, we recognise that not all trafficked children enter the UK as
UASC and not all UASC are trafficked. There may be a loss of current professional
expertise and knowledge in this area with the move to ‘specialist authorities’. Those
authorities undertaking initial assessments of UASC should be encouraged to
establish specialist teams in order that expertise around trafficking can be
developed. All Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCBs) will need to build
expertise around this so may need to make link to the ‘specialist authorities’
. Local
authorities who are not specialists will still need dialogue with the ‘specialist
authorities’ so that they can gain expertise, especially around issues like trafficking
and missing children, particularly now that the UK has signed the EU protocol,
which can link in to the wider multi-agency response to this issue.
5.3 Devolved
Nations: The legislative context
The main strategic policies that cover Children’s services in Wales and Scotland are
detailed in Annexe 1 and 2 respectively.
5.3.1 Wales
It is important that in responding to the consultation document the Home Office take
into account the Welsh policy agenda post devolution, through open dialogue with
the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and the Welsh Local Government
Association (WLGA)
We re-emphasise earlier comments that any programme of reform must be based
on the principle that UASC are children foremost and are protected in law by
relevant children’s legislation. In Wales, all policy relevant to children is based on
the principles of the UNCRC and underpinned by the 7 core aims adopted in ‘Rights
to Action’ which is the policy framework for children living in Wales.
The WLGA are keen to work in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government
and the Home Office to find a resolution to outstanding issues and provide a better
package of support for UASC. There also may be opportunities in Wales to
strengthen the regional agenda via collaboration and this is something we are keen
to explore.
The legislative process
In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government has devolved responsibility for Local
Government, Education and the Health Service, which cover the majority of key
services which Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children would need to access.
Page 8 of 26
Following the Government of Wales Act 2006,the Welsh Assembly has gained
significantly increased powers and is able to pass primary legislation via Framework
Powers over matters within their legislative competence. These new powers will
mark a significant change to lawmaking in Wales and it is essential that any
proposed reforms take account of these important changes to the legislative
process in Wales and the increased powers of the Assembly Government.
The planning process
From 2008 all 22 local authorities in Wales, will be required to produce four
statutory plans - the Children & Young peoples plan, the Health Social Care, the
Wellbeing Plan. the Community Strategy and the Local Development Plan. Each of
these plans will have an impact on the planning and delivery of children’s services.
Councils are currently in the early stages of development of these four plans and it
is essential that any new reforms that will significantly affect groups of children
residing in Wales are used to inform the planning process. The plans will be guided
to an extent by the content of the main strategic policies in Wales that cover
Children’s services, as detailed in Annexe 1.
The policy context
The principles of the policy context in Wales are broadly similar to that in England
with the Children Act 2004 and the Children &Young People’s NSF (for Wales)
acting as the main policy drivers.
However, the Children’s agenda in Wales is guided by a different legislative
arrangement, by different departmental structures and ultimately by differing policy
to England and Scotland. Having assessed the reform proposals against relevant
policy in Wales, it is important for local government that the following core policies
are taken into account should the Home Office take forward proposals to reform the
service frameworks for unaccompanied asylum seeing children:
1. Rights to Action
2. The Children Act 2004 (Wales clauses sections 25-43)
3. Making the Connections –‘Delivering Beyond Boundaries’
4. The Children and Young Peoples NSF
5. The Children and Young Peoples Single plan
6. The role of the Children & Young peoples framework partnerships
7. Child Poverty Implementation plan
8. Everybody’s Business
9. Designed for Life
10. Fulfilled Lives & Supportive Communities
11. The Foundation Phase
12. Learning Pathways 14-19
13. Extending Entitlement
Any proposals will have to fit in with ‘Rights to Action’, which is the Assembly
Government’s
overarching policy for ensuring that all children in Wales have the
best opportunity in life. Underpinning the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
which has been formally adopted by the Assembly, ‘Rights to Action’ sets out seven
core aims for children and young people in Wales, which span the service delivery
structures of local government and the health service.
Page 9 of 26
Other differences which will need to be addressed if any reforms are to be taken
forward in relation to structures in Wales under sections 25-27 of the Children Act.
The Act makes separate provision in Wales recognising the different paths travelled
in Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Government since devolution in 1999.
One of the major differences in Wales is that the Act does not make it a requirement
to establish Children’s Trusts in Wales and retains both a Chief Education Officer
and Director of Social Services. Every local authority has retained a Children and
Young Peoples Framework Partnership, which continues to act as the planning and
commissioning body for children’s services. Guidance in Wales has been issued by
the Assembly Government to support the implementation of the Act and is entitled
Stronger Partnerships for Better Outcomes.
5.3.2 Scotland
It is important that in responding to the consultation document the Home Office take
into account the Scottish Policy agenda post devolution, through open dialogue with
the Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA).
We re emphasise earlier comments that any programme of reform must be based
on the principle that UASC's are children first and foremost and are protected in law
by relevant children's legislation and policy. In Scotland, all policy relevant to
children is based on the principles of UNCRC and underpinned by
Getting it Right
for Every Child.
COSLA are keen to work in partnership with the Scottish Executive and the Home
Office to find a resolution to a range of outstanding issues and provide a better
package of support for UASC's. The position of the Scottish Executive requires
clarification and this has been delayed and made more difficult due to the political
situation here post election. This needs to be taken in context of the recent
HMIE/SWIA inspection on services to asylum seeking families and UASC's which
was commissioned by the Scottish Executive. Early indications are that the
Scottish Executive expect the standards outlined in the Ministerial vision for
Scotland's children to be applied in full. A UK context for delivering services to
UASC's needs to be developed and agreed between devolved governments and
Westminster.
In addition we would want to be explicit about the need for a holistic approach
to funding for services (including a range of devolved services) is an absolute
requirement in order that the true costs are borne by the responsible governments
and not passed on to Council Tax payers.
Page 10 of 26
6.
Response to consultation questions:
Chapter 2: Why improvements need to be made
Q1.
How might a system of placing young people with a limited number of
authorities help to ensure consistency of service provision and aid specialist
services?
Q1.1 We recognise that there are currently variations in the quality of services provided
and in the degree of specialisation offered by different authorities, particularly in
relation to social worker allocation, standards of accommodation, access to legal
advisors, health and education. We understand there remains considerable
variation in the way in which legislation has been interpreted, for example in some
areas UASC aged 16 and 17 are still being supported under S17 CA 1989 and
‘Leaving Care’ support. We are also aware of variations in the amounts paid to
UASC as subsistence payments as this often can depend upon local financial
policies. We welcome any opportunity to standardise an approach - but feel this
also needs to be flexible enough to take into account the individual needs of the
child.
Q1.2 We recognise that those providing a higher volume of service are more likely to be
able to establish the specialist support services needed to support UASC.
However, there are also difficulties for those authorities supporting very large
numbers of UASC in being able to properly meet the needs of all of the UASC that
they support - difficulties in the recruitment of staff, the provision of
placements/accommodation and in the availability of sufficient support services. At
the same time we recognise the significant pressures a small number of UASC can
place upon authorities with little experience and specialist knowledge in this area of
work, both in terms of staff experience, service capacity and cost.
Q1.3 We agree that it could be sensible to establish a smaller number of provider
authorities, working to similar specifications and dealing with reasonable volumes of
UASC which would enable a degree of specialisation and specialist support
services to be provided. There will always be local variations but this should ensure
a greater consistency of standards and support across the UK. The potential
advantages of this approach may include:
• Helping to achieve economies of scale
• Aiding Local Authority planning through consistent numbers
• Enabling development of specialist regional training
• Building capacity across all stakeholders
• Improving regional links with the Border and Immigration Authority (BIA) and
other essential services, for example access to legal advice, third sector support
etc
• Providing a degree of specialisation and specialist support services.
• Improving outcomes for UASC through, for example, offering a wider variety of
suitable placements
Page 11 of 26
Best practice example: Safe Case Transfer
The Safe Case Transfer (SCT) was initiated by Kent County Council and supported by the
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) because of concern about ‘out of
county’ placements made in the NW region. By ‘volunteering’ to be involved they were
able to ‘control’ where the UASC were placed and to build capacity for an agreed number.
The independent evaluation acknowledges that the UASC had a better service after
transfer to AGMA because of the stretched resources in Kent. Kent was able to assess the
UASC with the knowledge that they had placements available. NB - the pilot of SCT was
not extended due to the financial risks associated with ‘leaving care’ services.
Q1.4 However, all these standards of the ‘agreed models’ would need to be acceptable to
professional associations, local government representatives and other key local
stakeholders.
It is important that discussions around the standard and structures of
service models continue.
Q1.5 Any new approach to the support for asylum seekers needs further discussion and
piloting with local authorities. It will only be effective if it is implemented well and in
genuine partnership with stakeholders, both locally and nationally. The Home Office
needs to commit to developing pilot sites to assess progress before full
implementation. A clear set of measurable outcomes need to be piloted to
determine if the proposals are leading to better planning and outcomes for UASC.
Initial concerns about the proposals are detailed below.
Q2.
What other factors need to be put in place to achieve improved delivery of
services for unaccompanied asylum seeking children?
Q2.1 UASC are first and foremost children and young people and should be supported
with regard to childcare legislation and practice. There need to be minimum
standards to ensure a baseline of consistency. There needs to be clarity around
the primacy of legislation, currently these proposals may be perceived to be at odds
with some of the fundamental principles of the Children Act 2004 and the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Q2.2 Local authorities that accept transfers of UASC will have to be reassured that they
will receive sufficient resources. Adequate and secure levels of funding should be
provided centrally and should not be based solely on a cost-saving approach. It
needs to be recognised that existing levels of funding currently do not meet local
authority costs, so any attempt by central Government to reduce their own costs is
likely to lead to cost shunting onto local authorities, reducing the incentive for
‘specialist authorities’ to come forward. Clearly agreed and secure levels of funding
that reflect actual costs and reflect the legal obligations authorities are under to
support children from a childcare rather than asylum perspective would also be
required.
Page 12 of 26
Q2.3 There needs to be further discussion to ensure that the minors’ segment of the NAA
meets the needs of UASC and that it is closely aligned to the care/pathway planning
processes used by Local Authorities, especially in relation to timescales and
decision making. If the asylum claim could be lodged while the child is in the initial
assessment authority, the NAA process should only begin once the UASC has been
transferred to the ‘specialist authority’. This would require flexibility with the NAA
timings.
Q2.4 Local Authorities and regions must have the flexibility to decide what they see as
the most appropriate vehicle for taking forward the reform programme in their area,
building on existing partnership working and recognising local circumstances.
There are already a range of effective local partnerships that provide a
comprehensive service for UASC. Changes to support for UASC should not lead to
a collapse of such partnerships but should build on them. Some examples are
contained within this document.
Q2.5 Any form of transfer must be equitable both in numbers and in assessed need.
There needs to be a balanced and proportionate response that is graduated to
allow those authorities that choose to engage in this process to build up appropriate
capacity. Consideration should also be given to each authorities’ current LAC
population and proportions and UASC numbers should reflect these scales rather
than insist on a specific ‘ball-park’ figure. They will need to have agreed cluster
limits which will link to those already in place across existing dispersal areas.
Q2.6 The timescales for the project need to be realistic. Developing clear policies and
procedures and good communication strategies between authorities will necessitate
a lot of ground work and cannot be constructed or implemented quickly.
Q2.7 It is also important that the statutory responsibility of individual authorities for
individual UASC remains central to any arrangement. Authorities considering
acting as a ‘specialist authority’ should be encouraged to talk to neighbouring
authorities and take into account the support that they may be able to draw on from
their local regional consortia. We recognise the need to involve regional networks,
particularly regional migration partnerships and the regional strategic groups that
have been established across the regions. This engagement should ensure
synergy across asylum issues and ensure the placement of UASC considers issues
such as community cohesion and cluster limits and the capacity of regional
stakeholders to provide additional services and good practice around project
development, information sharing and training. Established asylum and refugee
networks may assist in maintaining valuable cultural links.
Q2.8 Whilst there may be a value in involving regional consortia, in particular to discuss
accommodation in ‘specialist authorities’, it is important that this system, which was
primarily set up to aid partnership working around supporting adult asylum seekers
needs should not be the only driver. Many authorities currently involved in the adult
and family dispersal programme and the provision of S4 accommodation are
already under significant pressure. BIA must focus upon a holistic approach to
asylum support and consider the impacts of all their business upon a local area or
region. The sustainability of the current dispersal process patterns must be
considered and the BIA will need to consider the possibility of bringing new
authorities into the business.
Page 13 of 26
Q2.9 A proactive media strategy needs to be developed prior to the Reform Programme
being implemented. There are huge lessons to be learnt from the dispersal policy
for adults and families around media strategies and community preparation, and are
even more important given the greater vulnerability of UASC.
Q2.10 The level of community support services available need to be carefully anticipated
and countered. Health and education need to plan and build capacity, preferably
before the dispersal process begins and this development needs to be fully funded
by central government departments. The lessons from the dispersal of adults and
families need to be taken into account, particularly in terms of the development of
infrastructure planning, mapping implications for services and considering impacts
on cohesion. Similarly, voluntary organisations would need to develop outside of
London and the South East
Q2.11 The availability and provision of appropriate legal services that have a combination
of asylum and childcare specialisms is a key issue to ensure the rights of these
children are independently advocated and represented. Interpreting and legal
services need capacity and expertise in the regions – especially with NAA and the
aim to increase the proportion of former UASC returned to their country of origin.
All support workers for UASC will need to have confidence in Home Office
decisions and that UASC have received expert and accurate legal advice.
Best practice example: Reception facilities in Kent
A reception and assessment centre has been in place in Kent since late 1999. It currently
caters for 25 young people. There is an educational assessment centre on site and the
teachers assess and get young people into school or roll on roll off college courses for the
older ones. A G.P. holds a surgery there once a week and refers as necessary and the
Refugee Children's panel visit. The residential staff give observations towards assessment
and this helps with age assessment , particularly as age is easier to assess when you can
see peer interactions. The staff also help to assess the independent living skills of the
older boys who may move into independent living. The residents are also involved as
volunteers in a woodland project which works in conservation and offers certificates etc.
The centre is set in a youth and community setting and allows for some interaction...
Q2.12 In addition to these initial concerns, fundamentally, we feel that there needs to be
much further clarity about how the changes could work in practice before key
stakeholders can fully comment on the proposals. At the very least, we need
further details of:
• The path from the point of presentation to the authorities to the initial
assessment centre and then specialist authority/region and clear definition of
what each are for.
• On the location of the initial assessment centre in relation to point of
presentation to the authorities and a clear understanding of the role of this
process within the general scheme of things.
• The relationship with in-country applications.
• Whether the authority where the child entered the UK would continue to be the
responsible authority after the transfer. (Or, as in the case of Safe Case
Transfer, where ‘full child care’ responsibility was transferred).
Page 14 of 26
• Sustainability issues around the limited travel links to and within regions which
will need to be resolved.
• The impact on PAF indicators, APA and JAR processes for authorities involved
in any stage of supporting UASC.
Q2.13 Children and young people must not be moved around the country in a transfer
mechanism which has no regard for any preference of location or aspiration or
expression of choice or input from them. Under the principles of ECM they must be
consulted about their futures.
Care Matters notes the need for a model of care
planning that is more child focused, that is developed with and through the child’s
own contributions and that is meaningful to the child.
Chapter 3: The Journey through the Asylum and Support System
Q3.
When a local authority decides to conduct an age assessment, should this
take place before or after arranging the transfer to a specialist authority?
Q3.1 The assessment of age is just one part of the initial assessment of a UASC –
nowhere in the Children Act or the Assessment Framework is there a specific set of
criteria related to age assessment, it is a part of the overall assessment of need. As
with any other young person, the initial assessment is important because it will
determine the nature of the service provided. This is even more so with UASC who
will not have previously been known to other agencies and are, almost by definition,
likely to be provided with immediate care and support. It therefore follows that the
initial assessment, including confirmation that the person is a child of a particular
age, is going to determine the placement provided for them. It is also important to
ensure the safeguarding of UASC and other children within the care system, and
that adults are not placed with children.
Q3.2 It will not always be possible to decide on the appropriate placement for a UASC at
this initial assessment, for example as a result of an age dispute or due to special
needs, some UASC will therefore need a longer period of time using proposed
’specialist assessment centres/authorities’ from which UASC would then transfer to
another authority for a longer term placement.
Q3.3 Sometimes further information about the age of the applicant will only become
available over a period of time, in which case there is a need to consider the
journey through the system if a re-assessment is required after initial decision. This
needs to be reflected in the proposed process.
Q3.4 Having a limited number of authorities undertaking initial assessments is an
opportunity to develop expertise which includes good assessment of UASC on
arrival. Skill of initial assessment/age assessment should be a specialised function
within a local authority and a throughput of numbers in a ‘specialist authority’ would
help maintain the viability of such teams. This could be part of an initial assessment
and include a multi-disciplinary assessment team. The decision making process
would need to be transparent and there would need to be a clear and continual
dialogue across the various agencies and authorities.
Page 15 of 26
Q3.5 Statutory timescales for LAC need to be considered and embedded into the NAA
and transfer process. BIA process should more adequately reflect the existing
timescales which Local Authorities currently have to work to on initial and core
assessment.
Good practice example: The Safe Case Transfer (SCT) pilot aimed to avoid ‘multiple
moves’ for the UASC. The UASC initially stayed at a residential unit in Kent with skilled
and experienced residential support staff. Social workers combined the residential
observations with their own assessment and it is proven good practice as every UASC
was appropriately placed. SCT gave receiving Authorities more confidence and resulted in
fewer disputes left to them to resolve. SCT experience was that transferring full child care
case responsibility from one authority to another meant that confidence in the assessment
prior to the transfer was important and this had benefits – there was no duplication of work,
immediate appropriate placement, UASC did not have to repeat information, the UASC
was supported through the transition from one LA to another.
Q4
What might be a valid reason for refusal to undergo a dental x-ray or other
medical examination to improve age assessment?
Q4.1 We recognise that there may be a number of legitimate reasons why a young
person would refuse to undergo dental or other medical examination. This could be
as a result of torture or ill treatment in their country of origin or due to fear and
religious and cultural norms. We need further clarity on when and why this
assessment should be undertaken. Full regard must be given to the child or young
person’s concerns at any dental or x-ray examination.
Q4.2 However, the assessment of age is just
one facet of the initial assessment, as set
out above. Local authorities have given careful consideration to how the ‘social
model’, including consideration of age, can give a holistic appraisal of the needs of
the young person. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated that
these assessments are likely to be no more accurate than a good social work
assessment in their 1999 guidelines. Medical assessments should be only seen as
a useful supplement to social worker assessments where necessary. Factors such
as a lack of base data, the UASC’s diet, health history as well as genetic and
cultural differences could affect the outcomes of the medical assessment. Much of
the work undertaken in this field is based on a European age model and that the
development of children from other areas of the world, in terms of bone density and
dental development may differ from the ‘European norm’. Variations in
environmental factors such as diet and climate may impact upon development and
these factors must be considered in terms of a more holistic approach to
assessment.
Q4.3 However, we are also aware that, increasingly, social work assessments have been
challenged by advocates acting on behalf of young people using medical
assessments of one form or another. Even though we remain of the view that a
good social work assessment should take precedence, if medical evidence is going
to form a part of the overall assessment of age, then it should only be used with the
support of the relevant medical authorities and professional bodies and after proper
evaluation of the reliability of the conclusions provided together with guidance.
Page 16 of 26
Q4.4 We await the outcome of the review of existing research in this area commissioned
by the Home Office outlined in the consultation document.
Q5
When should the assessment of longer term care needs take place (either
before or after transfer)?
Q5.1 Assessment is ongoing, not a one off event.
It should take place over a period of
time, both during the initial phase and when the young person is in placement. If
the young person moves geographically, action will need to be taken to ensure that
any assessment remains current. However, with these provisos, we feel that early
assessment by a specialist proved effective in Safe Case Transfer
Q6.
Should we generally encourage the move of those who have been fostered to
other forms of support – in particular after they reach 16?
Q6.1 Placements should be according to need, rather than chronological age.
Independent living will not be suitable for all post-16’s. A policy of this nature would
contravene existing guidance and regulation on placement choice and ignores the
role and possible contribution of Independent Reviewing Officers. Such a blanket
approach to the care of UASC would also impact on performance indicators and
leave authorities open to legal challenge on a number of levels.
Q6.2 The consideration of a change in placement for a young person at the age of 16
should be determined through a care planning approach, rather than any general
norm. Preparing a young person for independence could be achievable in a foster
placement or in some more independent living arrangement. Decisions on the
placement of children should remain flexible and be carried out on an assessment
of need. The primacy in decision making should rest with the care planning system
and be guided by the best interests of the young person.
Q7 In what other ways can care planning be better aligned to immigration
considerations
Q7.1 We believe that immigration considerations should be better aligned with care
planning and as such should be driven by the needs of the individual child and not
by the asylum process.
Q7.2 The Local Authority has a range of other considerations to take into account in a
difficult balancing act. The expectation of both childcare legislation and the courts
is not as simple as once a child is returned home, the local authority duty stops
Q7.3 The development of the case management approach in the NAA is welcomed.
Care planning will be assisted by the introduction of the ‘case owner’ model which
should allow for better and clearer communication between the immigration
authorities and the care authority. However, we need to stay focused on the
individual childcare needs of the UASC as the primary, rather than the secondary,
focus.
Page 17 of 26
Q7.4 There is a need to develop better communications and sharing of information with
the BIA over the timescales of the decision making process and removals. We
support ongoing work that is considering the development of information sharing
protocols. However, any information sharing protocols must pay due regard to the
rights of the young people and the core responsibilities of all agencies. There are
also some concerns that interviewing children from the age of 12 under NAA is
inappropriate and should be reassessed.
Q8
What further guidance is needed in managing the needs and expectations of
UASC whose asylum claim fails?
Q8.1 All looked after children should be provided with a service that both meets their
needs whilst they are looked after but also takes account of the reasons why they
became looked after in the first place and properly plans for their long-term future.
The key is for UASC to be informed of the options available.
Q8.2 Return to the country of origin will be a difficult concept for UASC, especially as the
political and cultural developments in that country will change over the period that a
young person is a UASC. If a young person has a negative decision as a 12 or 13
year old, but will not be removed until the age of 18, apart from keeping a working
knowledge of the young person’s language of origin, it is questionable how realistic
is it to prepare for a return through vocational training etc. Consideration also
needs to be given to whether a different approach is taken according to the age at
which a young person first claims asylum.
Q8.3 There needs to be more clarity of expectation – currently, nothing happens when an
asylum claim fails. There are a number of different outcomes depending on for
example whether or not an applicant has already appealed or whether they are from
a country to which forced return is not possible. Therefore, the experience of most
UASC (based on what happens to their peers) is to ignore the possibility that they
may not be able to remain in the UK. In the absence of a positive decision, it is
difficult for young people to plan properly for the future. NAA should lead to some
improvements but it is important that UASC can see that there are consequences to
the outcome of their asylum applications.
Q8.4 It is extremely important that UASC are made aware of the options available to
them upon a negative decision and the potential outcomes of particular decisions.
Outcomes such as the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme
(VARRP), S4 support and possible destitution need to be reinforced. Destitution
should not be used as a pressure to ensure UASC are returned to their country of
origin when it is against the best interests of the child.
Q8.5 We also recognise that for some former UASC who will claim S4-type support will
have little likelihood of return, for example as there is no safe route. S4 remains a
temporary form of support and we would recommend that consideration is given to
a form of temporary leave to remain. We also recommend a time limit by which
former asylum seeking children are given indefinite leave to remain.
Page 18 of 26
Q8.6 As noted above, there also needs to be further thought about the funding
implications for local authorities in relation to the costs of support for UASC whose
asylum claim fail and whom then are destitute. This issue impacts not just on Social
Services budgets but across the whole of the local authority.
Q8.7 Under NAA, Discretionary Leave (DL) will be granted up to the age of 17½ as
opposed to 18 years of age as per the previous system. However, Section 83 of
the 2002 Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act states that if an asylum seeker
has been granted leave of less than 1 year, s/he doesn’t have an immediate right of
appeal. As a result of this legislation and the change to DL, those receiving DL
after 16½ years will not have a right of appeal until they are refused an extension at
age 17½ years or over. The Home Office may like to consider how this legislative
barrier to effective care planning could be resolved.
Q8.7 The absence of any mention of integration support for UASC granted refugee status
within the consultation paper seems to indicate an assumption that no UASC will
receive refugee status. We propose that special integration measures for such
vulnerable children need to be outlined and funded.
Q9. Should we develop new voluntary return packages for 16 and 17 year olds? If
so, how could these be structured?
Q9.1 There needs to be a clear process with outcomes and consequences – there needs
to be timescales, arrangements with country of origin and a process by which such
returns will be managed together with incentives for failed UASC to take up the
opportunity of a voluntary return. Equally, we need to avoid creating perverse
incentives so that UASC remove themselves from the support system.
Q9.2 We are also interested in receiving further information on why this is deemed
appropriate just for 16 and 17 year olds. It needs to be age appropriate, taking into
account individual circumstances
Q9.3 We need further clarity on how the funding basis and arrangements for ‘the
generous package of voluntary return’ will be determined. The consultation is also
posited on the assumption that all UASC will leave and we need further indication of
what support will be available for those that stay and how will this be funded.
Q9.4
The issue of any type of returns needs much more detailed analysis and a clear
understanding of the legal obligations which may fall to local authorities once a child
has returned to their country of origin. We would recommend further discussion of
the role and responsibilities of local authorities in the return monitoring process,
either by their own or by judicial direction and the ability of authorities to fund and
resource this additional piece of work.
Q9.5 There is a need for clarification over what the returns package would include and
whether it would be similar to that of the adult’s package. For the young person
return package, education and training should be a priority on return to the country.
Any package should include the facility for the young person to be either supported
or be independent on their return. We also need to take care that we find a way to
encourage both better return packages which do not act as drivers to come to the
UK in the first place
Page 19 of 26
Q9.6 There should be a series of longitudinal studies instituted to ensure an evidence-
based approaches, especially as, at present, there is no real confidence in the
Home Office or Foreign Commonwealth Office being able to track young people
once they are returned to country of origin. Therefore, we strongly advocate a live
case transfer between the ‘specialist authority’ and the future carer/monitor in the
country of origin. There need to be clear arrangements for the reception, care and
support of young people on their return to their country of origin. There need to be
safeguards against re-trafficking and other child protection issues and appropriate
human rights safeguards (see Q11.2 - 5 below).
Q9.7 Consideration needs be given to building in an element of ‘home contact’ at the
earliest opportunity. When a UASC comes into the system at the initial stage,
greater focus may be needed on international family reunification. This could be an
area for greater development, rather just relying on forced or voluntary returns.
Q10 Might an enhanced but reducing package encourage take-up of voluntary
return?
Q10.1 Again, we need further clarity on how the funding basis and arrangements for this
will be determined, in particular the levels at which the ‘reducing’ package will fall,
how it will be monitored and how the decisions will be made to reduce them.
Q10.2 However, we do not feel this proposal actually would work in practice. From all past
experience the asylum seeker/UASC will leave the issue of return decision making
to the last possible moment, especially if they have been in the UK for a significant
number of years. Even an enhanced package is unlikely to encourage take-up of
voluntary return.
Q10.3 In addition, we do not support this proposal in principle as this package also pre-
empts the final decision on an asylum claim and puts undue pressure on a child to
comply in order to receive financial help.
Q11 What safeguards need to be put in place before children can be returned to
their country of origin on an enforced basis?
Q11.1 Attention also needs to be given to the risk of UASC absconding from placement if
they know that an enforced return package is to be implemented. For example, in
Scotland the experience from the forced removal of failed asylum seeking families
has led to significant adverse publicity and resultant community tensions.
Q11.2
However, given this process should be part of a care planning process that centres
on the needs of vulnerable children, we question whether any unaccompanied child
should be returned on an enforced basis.
Q11.3 In relation to the issue of safeguarding in general, any returns package needs to be
founded upon a thorough appraisal from a safeguarding perspective. Local
authorities will need to be convinced that there are appropriate levels of support and
effective safety mechanisms in place as part of a thorough assessment.
Page 20 of 26
Q11.4 An equitable service to all young people would be difficult as it would be impossible
to standardise care facilities across all countries. Therefore, safeguards need to be
in place to make sure that reasonable standards exist. The Home Office needs to
be clear on how they will identify and evaluate institutional care facilities in the
countries of origin before children are returned. Any systematic returns programme
will need to consider developing capacity and accessing services within the UASC’s
country of origin.
Q11.5 The Home Office must ensure that countries to which UASC return have
appropriate arrangements for safeguarding their welfare. Young people under the
age of 18 should not be returned to their country of origin if these mechanisms
cannot be put in place.
Q11.6 Local government has a leadership role via structures such as LSCBs for ensuring
the safeguarding of all children, including those who are vulnerable. The Children
Act 2004 places responsibility on the newly constituted LSCBs to drive the
development of the safeguarding agenda at a local level. The LSCBs must be
supported by Government to develop and become sustainable to ensure they are
well-placed to support the needs of vulnerable children within a locality and to be
responsive to new and emerging risks. It is essential that LSCBs are adequately
resourced to be effective in their primary duties. (N.B In Scotland the responsibility
for ensuring welfare of vulnerable children is carried out by child protection
committees, though the points made above still apply.)
Q12 Who is best placed to work with the young person on the plan of return?
Q12.1 Again, we presume we are working towards a return at age 18.
Q12.2 The Home Office/case owner need to take the lead in setting out the parameters of
the arrangements for the return to the country of origin – it is an immigration
decision and responsibility for saying what happens and when clearly lies with the
immigration authorities.
Q12.3 We believe that the work involved in planning return with a young person has so
many different considerations that it needs to take a multi-agency approach. A
whole range of issues may well come into play, including health, social care,
advocacy, legal and asylum issues and as such any planning needs to take full
account of the individual case and structure return expectations appropriately. We
would welcome further work on the willingness and opportunity available to
responsible authorities to engage with external agencies to undertake obligations
on their behalf.
Q12.4 The social worker/leaving care worker can have a role in how to prepare for and
plan with the young person. Should the young person have a particular link to a
member of staff working in a voluntary sector organisation or who is otherwise
acting as their ‘personal advisor’, then he or she may be best placed to assist.
Page 21 of 26
Q13 Should the service be procured from specialists and if so, whom?
Q13.1 We would need further clarity on what the ‘specialists’ might be in this context and
what services would be being procured before fully being able to comment. We
would want some kind of regulatory procedure for any specialists.
Q13.2 Any plan of return should become incorporated into mainstream planning around
the future of each child and as such become incorporated into normal process. As
stated above, the involvement of a third party may be appropriate, depending upon
circumstance. Where specialist input is required, it should be around the
arrangements for the return to the country of origin – it is unclear as to whether this
is an extension of the case owner model or something more. Some form of
independent advocacy may be appropriate and this could be made available to
each child at their request. However, if the child has received ongoing information
and support around returning home as part of their care package, perhaps including
family reunification and home contact, the requirement for a more specialist service
is perhaps reduced.
Q14. What are the challenges for integrating the voluntary return package within
the care planning process for children whose asylum applications have been
unsuccessful?
Q14.1 Clear messages need to be given about the situation, to the child and to local
authority staff. There needs to be a wide knowledge of schemes to be available
from the beginning of the process and a continual emphasis on safeguarding.
Q14.2 Greater consideration needs to be given to their status and further clarity as to who
has responsibility for them and the role of LCSBs, Police, Home Office and Local
Authority.
Q14.3 There is a need to work with named officials in Authorities or non-government
organisations in the country of origin and a need for consistent and clear
information to the carers to the young person and Local Authority on the process of
voluntary returns.
Q14.4 The key challenge to the implementation of arrangements for voluntary returns is
whether or not there are any consequences for the young people who decline to
engage – if there are no consequences, the likelihood of young people participating
is minimal.
Chapter 4: The Specialist Authority
Q15. Are these the right factors that need to be addressed in identifying specialist
authorities and are there any others?
Q15.1 We agree that the factors listed should be addressed.
Page 22 of 26
Q15.2 The other factors should include:
• Good child care standards
• Consistent use of the legislation
• A willingness to engage with the process is essential and the appropriate
political support for that engagement is also critical.
Q15.3 In addition:
• There needs to be further clarity as to whether each ‘specialist authority’ would
need to meet all these requirements. We would also require further detail about
what each factor means in practice and what would be required regionally and
what would be required locally.
• There needs to be a strong and clear agreement that all costs are met and that
grant payments flexibly reflect actual costs, rather than a generic figure. These
costs should be negotiated by the particular authority with flexibility to include
exceptional cases and leaving care costs. As previously noted, ‘specialist
authorities’ would need assurance of additional funding support to cover
responsibilities for this group when they become over 18 years old.
• There needs to be further consideration of practical arrangements, especially
concerning travel arrangements. This is particularly relevant to regions that are
located far from their NAA team and the need to arrange extensive travel for
children and a responsible adult for a minimum of three NAA events.
• Placements need to be planned culturally – the assessment before transfer
therefore is key. Any placement must recognise current language and
settlement patterns to assist children and service providers to access
appropriate language and cultural support. Therefore the nearest placement is
not necessarily most appropriate.
• One of the criteria should be the ability to provide appropriate mental health and
therapeutic support, recognising that many of the UASC will have suffered
trauma in their country of origin. There is a growing identification of the need for
services in relation to rape and torture.
• The National Register for Unaccompanied Children (NRUC) would be an
essential management tool and the future of its funding needs to be secured.
We need to ensure that where additional information services appear to be
needed, as with the NRUC, that these are fully integrated with other
management information systems existing to ensure joined up and effective
working between agencies, notably the common assessment framework, and do
not duplicate other work or add additional burdens for local authorities or their
partners locally.
• If shared accommodation is the option chosen as best for the child, there needs
to be clear, agreed and consistent standards of accommodation need to be in
place:
Page 23 of 26
Best practice example: London Asylum Seekers Consortium (LASC) commissioning
strategy
LASC has recently revised its service specifications for the use of local authorities who are
consortia members. The commissioning strategy outlines a pricing structure which has
been market tested and taken into account the cost of rents across London. This pricing
structure also includes costs for support packages. The procurement process is completed
in line with Westminster City Council, which is the lead authority. Westminster checks the
provider’s company name, finances, insurance, fraud measures, policies, references and
LASC checks the provider’s ability to carry out services as outlined in the specification.
Once the provider passes this stage LASC will check the office premises to ensure all
policies and procedures are in place as well as staffing/recruitment files, and conduct a
detailed inspection of properties. If the provider passes all stages they are entered onto
an accredited list. If and when accommodation is needed, a Westminster environmental
health inspection must take place prior to using that accommodation. LASC conducts both
announced and unannounced visits on a schedule which includes monitoring the
accommodation and the providers to ensure that services are provided and maintained to
a high standard.
Q15.4 Meeting all these factors would require the agreement of all local partners, not just
local authorities and the Home Office may need to liaise with other central
government departments to facilitate this.
Q16. Is 50-60 the right number of specialist authorities to begin with?
Q16.1 In practice, as noted in above, given the many reservations to the consultation
proposals expressed in this document, it is unlikely that this number of ‘specialist
authorities’, if any at all, will be reached as local authorities will be reluctant to
participate in this scheme unless these issues are resolved satisfactorily. The
consultation notes that wider geographical distribution of UASC will be, “predicated
on the willingness of new authorities to accept responsibility for greater numbers…”,
however no mention is made of how such ‘willingness’ might be created, either in
terms of resource implications or politically for local authorities.
Q16.2 Local authorities may wish to join together to act as a specialist authority/region,
which may minimise the risks involved. Rather than develop a system of individual
specialist authorities, the experience of mainstream dispersal could lead to local
authorities joining together as a region with a co-ordinating, lead organisation.
Q16.3 In theory, the number of authorities/regions providing ongoing care and support to
UASC needs to be based on the numbers of UASCs needing support and upon the
capacity of authorities to support these children – for economies of scale to be
achieved, such authorities/regions should be supporting something in the region of
100 UASC each. The total number of authorities/regions will then depend on the
arrangements made overall for the distribution of UASC for ongoing support, as
opposed to the numbers remaining with the authority to which they first present.
Page 24 of 26
Q16.4 The priorities of local authorities across the UK will be different, as will the
differences between those with high numbers who will transfer UASC and those
who accept the transfer of UASC. There are the advantages for both – the regions
are already experiencing the placement of UASC outside of the responsible
authority.
Q16.5 Not all UASC are the same and considerations around transfers also need to reflect
their level of needs. Local areas also need to have the capacity in terms of support
services such as health, education and appropriate community & voluntary sector
infrastructure. This particularly needs to be taken into account when placing UASC
with special health needs, especially in accommodation with adaptations.
Q16.6 The number of specialist authorities/regions should be measured by their capacity
to make a good child care specification and Home Office requirements matched to
the overall numbers of asylum seekers needing assessment and placement. If the
numbers of young UASC should dramatically increase, it may be necessary to
increase the number of specialist authorities/regions.
Q17 Should the Home Office facilitate the procurement of services in partnership
with Local Authorities?
Q18 Should the Home Office leave the procurement of services to Local Authorities
but provide a model service specification and benchmark costs at a regional
level?
Q19 Would Local Government Associations have any role to play in the
procurement of services
Q17/18/19.1 Flexibility is needed at a local level on procurement. Regional consortia could
assist in the procurement of accommodation to ensure that local needs are
being responded to. LASC and SCT could provide examples of specifications
that were developed with input from the home office. However, it should be
noted that UASC are the responsibility of individual authorities even if those
authorities choose to commission jointly with others. The Home Office
should work in partnership with local authorities to consider the procurement
of services but the local authority as the responsible agency must retain a
lead role in the process, particularly as the local authority will already have
local contacts and knowledge to inform the process.
Q17/18/19.2 Any benchmarking would have to be on a like for like basis, i.e., against
other services for looked after children and agreed with DfES.
Commissioning and procurement of services should be left to the Local
Authority, but agreed specification with the Home Office. Costs should
reflect what is currently available or can be negotiated within a regional
basis, similar to those for the indigenous looked after accommodation. We
would be concerned if this procurement took place only where cheaper
accommodation is available as this could be inappropriate for UASC and
may not having taken into account local issues.
Page 25 of 26
Q17/18/19.3 Consideration needs to be given to the nature of the services being
procured. In terms of the procurement of placements for children under 16,
there is a statutory framework which provides the model; market costs will be
similar to those for other LAC under the age of 16; it is difficult to see what
the Home Office could add to this. For those aged over 16, there are already
examples of service specification and costs developed by regional consortia
(e.g. LASC) which provide the basis for the procurement of services and
have been developed in conjunction with the Home Office. Where
government would have a role is in the procurement of services from
specialist authorities/regions where brokerage with other authorities/agencies
would be assisted by the intervention of a third party. Many authorities
already have model service specification and benchmark costs at a local
level. Whilst a national ‘guidance’ framework may be useful, work at
collating and evaluating existing service specifications and agreed standards
needs to be undertaken. This should ensure consistency across the whole
of LAC provision and not just UASC
Q17/18/19.5 The Local Government Associations cannot be involved in procurement as
unincorporated associations but they could support and represent member
authorities.
End.
Page 26 of 26
