Midlands and East of England NAM Minors Segment Stakeholder Group

20^th August 2008

Present: (UKBA - Chair), (UKBA), (MEU), (Staffordshire), (Refugee Council), (Refugee Council), (Solihull MBC), (Leicester), (Staffordshire), (IAS), (WMSMP).

Apologies: ( Solihull MBC), (Sandwell), (UKBA), (Wolverhampton), (Norfolk), (Shropshire), (Worcestershire)

Request to sign interview forms to agree content.

JD understood that the changes to the interview form which JS provided to group at the last meeting had come about as result of the EU procedures directive. As this was originally raised by ILPA to will take the issue back to ILPA to pursue

To recap from the last meeting, J had questioned why children were being asked to approve the contents of the interview. Some cases in London have been cited where this is being explained/used by caseworkers to ask young people to confirm that they agree with the content of the interview information. The confirmation signature however was explained by JS at the last meeting as relating only to the information provided for securing of a National Insurance Number.

JD notes this does not appear to have been an issue raised in West Mids. JS had asked other caseworkers what they were doing in relation to this section, it appears some return to the declaration on page 4 at the end of the interview, but ask individual if they are happy to sign or not. Some give option to individual to take copy home and sign at a later date if they agree content.

RS noted that last week only 1 of the 4 cases they had dealt with was asked to sign declaration to confirm interview record, and that in this case the case owner asked if they were happy to sign to confirm, they did not wish to do this at that stage and this was fine with caseworker.

Action: JS agreed to take this issue back to colleagues and consider whether some further training as required to clarify the policy for this section of the form. JS also agreed to provide a brief summary for colleagues and the Stakeholder group on the policy related to page 4 and the declaration.

FRE (not free) DVD

JS reported that CW had asked for a business proposal on this to be prepared. Discussion had taken place with DL on this issue, and some outline costs had been suggested, JS required another quote, and then would report back. Working on a proposal for costs for filming and a specific number of DVDs. The group asked about languages it might be available in, DL suggested that this might be in the 5 main languages.

DN noted work that the Study Support team has done in Birmingham on welcome pack and translated materials for new arrived children and parents. NW also noted the Save the Children booklet on `Claiming Asylum in the UK' which might also be used to provide information for the DVD content.

DL noted in previous work Staffordshire had done the young people involved got accreditation for work they had done in the project. She encouraged this to be considered.

Attendance of legal representatives and proceeding with Interviews

JS had spoken to the Policy Unit about this issue, concerns had been raised as to

interviews proceeding with minors without the attendance of a legal rep. Policy

confirmed that a young person should have a legal representative present at

interview, but it appears that case owners have the discretion to decide on a

case by case basis whether the interview should be rescheduled. (Jenny is this

correct? It would appear that there may be some variation between case owners

on this issue, some would reschedule, some would proceed, can we have a clear

statement on what is expected ? Maybe this needs to be raised with

Vandha/Celia, but there did not appear to be an issue about this in the Region)

At our last meeting we had agreed to monitor the occasions where the legal representative for a young person did not attend the substantive interview. We agreed to monitor this from 1^st August - 30^th September. It was also agreed that we would inform from the LSC of the findings.

Members to provide name of firm/legal rep and reason where applicable given for non attendance at substantive interview.

JS reported that to date there had only been 2 examples of where a rep had indicated they would be unable to attend the substantive interview, these cases would not count in the system as the interviews were rescheduled. One case was of a firm of solicitors not recognized by the NAM team, and social services arranged for new representation for the young person, in the other case the solicitor had not been able to submit the SEF in time and it had been agreed with the caseworker that the interview would be rescheduled.

DH reported that this had been raised at a recent team meeting, but no cases had come to light as yet.

Action: LA's and the Children Panel sector would provide a response to DN in the 1^st week of October, JS was to monitor and collate responses from NAM caseworkers on this issue.

JS & DN provided an overview of the issues from the User group. had given an update on the work the Legal Service Commission had undertaking looking at an enhanced service for minors. (We will try and forward a copy of his presentation with the User group notes) There area number of changes they wish to make, but some of this is dependant on progress of the UASC reform and whether any LA's in our region are willing to take this on.

He helpfully confirmed that legal reps are funded to undertake work on age dispute, and also to attend any interview which has immigration content, this would include screening, substantive interviews and appeals, but not the FRE. He is concerned about the non attendance at substantive interviews by some representatives, and would like to follow up details of examples where this has happened.

from Solihull's UASC team provided an overview of the age assessment process from the LA's perspective, and helped clarify the type of cases where no full LA age assessment would be undertaken.

Caseworkers also confirmed that they have the ability to change DOB's for young people as result of new age assessment information from LA's.

LA and vol sector staff were keen to have more information about pre NAM case processing and reviews. This would be taken forward at future meetings. (Nb - The Stakeholder group felt it was more appropriate for this discussion and attendance from a CRD representative the Stakeholder meeting, Action: JD agreed provide a list of key questions/ areas we'd like CRD to cover at a future meeting)

Date of next User group meeting - Friday 12^th September 1-3 p.m. at Chadwick House, Solihull.

Age Assessment

JD informed the group that the age assessment working group that had been set up in response to UASC reform was nearing the finalization of its recommendations, UKBA would draft a position paper. Discussion about what constituted good practice in relation to medical/dental evidence highlighted that from a medical viewpoint dental x-rays can't give the reliability required. There is still a requirement to look further at the process of age assessment. It was suggested that further training and discussion on age assessment as pat of the NAM process might benefit from seeing the conclusions of this working group. RR sits on this group as well, suggest an update for next meeting.

Case Resolution

Following from the point above re CRD, JD noted that UKBA had indicated that all pre NAM uasc cases should have received an initial decision. JD notes that the former specialist UASC casework teams dealing with pre NAM cases had been disbanded. DL indicated that Staffordshire still had a number of pre NAM cases where there had been no initial decision. JD noted that Refugee Council would like to be made aware of these, and RC may be able to ask further questions on such cases. At present it is not certain what might happen to these cases as there would be no CRD trained caseworkers make decision on cases, it was suggested that UASC should speak to their legal representative in such cases for advice.

With holding information from Local Authority team

This item had been carried over from last meeting, there appears to be occasions when social workers are not being informed at the earliest opportunity that an individual may have previously claimed asylum or been supported in another area. Issues related to false documentation or previous arrests for criminal issues and used other identity etc, which might also indicate a different age than is being claimed at present. LA's note specific safeguarding and placement concerns which necessitate the more effective sharing of such information

JD noted that the policy was that information should be shared between UKBA and Local Authorities, but data protection and confidentiality may influence this process. JS noted UKBA policy is to always treat the information provided in the 1^st instance by individuals as correct, unless sufficient grounds to doubt this are identified. It appears that there may be a need to revisit the issue of a protocol which covers the sharing of information between case owners and LA staff. JD notes previous discussion on the non disclosure of Eurodac information to LA's.

NW noted a recent Children's Panel case where a medical report for minor had been provided to UKBA but the case owner had been unwilling to inform the LA of the new evidence and was not willing to give reasons for this. NW to follow up this case with VM/JS. Not clear from initial description whether this was an individual LA had age assessed as adult. NW/ JS to provide update at next meeting.

Action: JS agreed to look again at what the NAM team are doing in sharing this information with social workers. PR noted the duty of care UKBA should have in these instances to, existing policy on what info is shared and the protocol should be reviewed in light of the safeguarding agenda. JS to report to the group at next meeting.

Arrest at substantive interview

Again taken from last meeting, PR concerned at this issue if it has happened. NW agreed to speak about one case he was aware of to PR , no one else present at meeting was aware of similar incidents. NW to update at next meeting.

Quality of Interpreters

DH raised issues from Solihull's experience, in many cases solicitors/ LA bring their own interpreter with them to substantive i/v, they had concerns about one specific interpreter UKBA are using, it was felt that the quality of the interpreting provide was poor/ incorrect. Can UKBA provide a clear statement on the quality controls and review of interpreter's performance and how LA's/ Vol sector or Legal reps could raise concerns about standards of interpreting with UKBA? A number of others reported similar concerns with specific interpreter. JS noted that UASC, LA's, Legal Rep or Vol sector could raise concerns about interpreting with the case owner involved, similarly there is a complaints procedure, but also acknowledged that interpreters are booked by Liverpool.

JD noted the refugee children's consortium had written to Mathew Coates (UKBA) with relation to interpreters having full CRB check and also what specific training they were given in working with children/ young people.

Action: JS to clarify what the current system of accreditation and complaints procedure for interpreters is and report back to group. JD to follow up response from to consortium.

Young people who go missing

DH noted that individuals are more likely to go missing from care when they 1^st arrive, what happens to the asylum case for those who go missing? How and when is a decision made on the case by NAM case owner? What happens if the young person returns?

UKBA colleagues indicate current practice would depend on whether the NAM process had started, e.g. FRE? If individual had left the area/ LA care before any NAM caseworker involvement they are recorded on system as an absconder. It is probably that if they returned to Care that UKBA would allow the NAM clock to start again, although this might be different if they wee now an adult. For those who had gone missing and been refused on non compliance grounds, e.g. no SEF completed, NAM cases could be reopened, pre NAM ones would be dealt with by CRD. JD asked if Refugee Council could be notified of any CRD cases. VM offered to follow up on any CRD cases affected in this way. (is this correct?)

Caseload

VM provided an update on new cases through the NAM system in July/ August.

NW notes an increase in Vietnamese males who have been involved in cannabis cultivation who have come through to the Children's Panel, they are working with ECPAT on these cases. Concerns were raised about a number of trafficked children ending up in young offenders institutes ( NW noted this, but it is not clear this is a problems in the West Midlands at present) and not getting accessing to claim asylum (if appropriate). It is not clear whether the individuals are able to see Immigration before they are going before the court.

PR noted that UKBA were doing some foreign national prisoner surgeries in some areas. PR noted UKBA's position would be to distinguish between trafficking and people smuggling but it does not appear that Immigration are always notified of these cases which may be considered as purely criminal matters.

The group suggested further contact with Young Offenders Institutes might be developed on this issue.

Active Case Review

VM advised that the policy governing active case review was anticipated to be available n 2 weeks, the implementation timescales are not known at present. Several LA reps noted problems being experienced with DWP for clients where extension of leave has been applied for but there is no UKBA documentation to confirm this, the work Sue Blick (Walsall) has been undertaking with DWP was noted, and VM offered to attend next meeting. UKBA to consider whether case owners could write to DWP in relation to benefit claims confirming the current position on DL and that status remains until a new decision is made.

Action: DN to contact Sue Blick re above.

Withdrawal of automatic 12 month discretionary leave for minors form countries with no suspensive appeals.

VM noted recent change , will affect individuals from 12- 15 countries who would normally have been returnable but were previously given DL. A pilot on returns for these cases is being considered, unlikely to affect many new cases.

IOM

VM advised the group that IOM were due to start a fortnightly surgery at MEU for those who might be interested in voluntary returns.

Action: VM to forward details to DN for inclusion with notes

7