Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Ref: 11130 Internal Review Request'.
(Word document)
Midlands and East of England NAM Minors stakeholder group
Notes for the meeting of 23rd April 2008
Present: (Refugee Council), (UKBA), (UKBA), (Staffordshire County Council), (Staffordshire County Council), (Warwickshire County Council), (Norfolk County Council & EERA rep), (Birmingham City Council), (Refugee Council), (Leicester City Council), (IAS), (WMSMP)
Apologies: (Worcestershire County Council), (Sandwell), (Save the Children), (Solihull)
Notes from meeting of
CW & DN apologised for the lack of notes from the last meeting, JD/CW noted that two main issues had been raised;
First Reporting Events and agenda items for the NAM User group. (will be covered in main agenda)
JD had also raised the new question in the substantive interview where children are asked to sign a statement to confirm they were happy with the written record of the interview. We understand that the change comes as a result of the implementation of the new EU directive, which came into force in December 07. JD & CW note that children may refuse to sign the record. DN raised issue for those children who might still be interviewed without the presence of a legal representative, how would UKBA ensure that child understood the implications of signing the statement. It was suggested that a statement that was signed by the child as true record would be harder for the child to go back on at appeal even if they did not understand what had been recorded, this might make appeals more difficult for children in such cases. CW agreed to go back to colleagues and consider what action UKBA might take on this issue, particularly in light of code of practice proposals re keeping children safe from harm.
Update from NAM User group 29th Feb 08
Notes from the meeting had already been circulated to group members, those present who had staff attend from their agency had received positive feedback from the meeting. It had provided a helpful forum for frontline Staff and case owners to begin to develop an understanding of roles. The next meeting was to be held on 9th May from 1.00 p.m, if organisations could confirm who will be attending to CW (), DN/CW would welcome feedback from members on possible items for the meeting. NW offered to do a brief presentation on the work of the Children's Panel.
UASC Reform
SG asked where other LA's in the wider region were up to in relation to responding to the UASC reform, and whether any had moved closer to considering becoming Specialist Authorities. In East of England it was currently uncertain whether any Authorities were willing to consider this option.
DN provided an update on the situation within the West Midlands. Work had been undertaken with the LA's in the region to develop a draft model service specification, but further work had been required on cost and volumes, outstanding issues particularly in relation to current funding and leaving care still required clarification from UKBA. It was also identified that one of the further pieces of work which needed to be done was in relation to modelling a range of numbers and potential impact on costs for increased numbers of UASCs in specific authorities or the region. We noted current costs might not be an accurate indicator of potential costs if larger numbers were being dealt with.
SG noted questions remained for some of the Rural LA's in relation to potential placement from some of the larger LA's or future specialist LA's in their areas without any specific funding coming to rural areas to compensate for costs incurred, e.g. Education. Concerns were also raised in relation to wider leaving care duties and how safe case transfer might affect this. Concerns also persist in relation to the importance of first contact the development of and relationship of trust with social workers and how this might be disrupted if young person is then transferred to specialist arrangements.SG notes possible impact on Safeguarding duty for LA's in this regard as well.
DN noted that one new emphasis in the Better Outcomes UKBA response was the requirement for specialist authorities to be able to deal with trafficked children. KK highlighted a recent example where a minor aged between 9 and 12 years old had been picked up by Police as part of lorry drop, and that Police were using video interviews and same procedures as recommended when dealing with victims of child trafficking, SG also noted Police in her region seemed more aware of the issue of child trafficking as a result of Operation Pentameter 2.
FRE Update
NW provided a report on the work that Refugee Council and Save the Children had undertaken on young peoples experience of the FRE. (Attached)
13 young people had completed the questionnaire, whilst a larger sample had been looked for it was felt that the report provided a useful summary of some key issues. These were all young people who had been requested to attend an FRE at UKBA offices in Solihull, (all were from the West Midlands region).
Key points:
Young people were not always aware of who they had spoken with at MEU.
Large proportion of individuals didn't understand the purpose of the FRE, and a proportion of them had ad FRE cancelled on more than 1 occasion.
Time taken in the FRE varied considerably, JS advised the group that on average n FRE should take between 20-30 minutes, but there might be complications in relation to interpreting or extra time required o settle young person at appointment.
Young people's recollection of the content of the FRE appears to match UKBA expectation of what should be covered.
Only 50% of the young people had an adult accompany them to the FRE.
Young people had generally found the FRE useful, but expectations and explanation of the NAM process were not always clear to them.
Only half of the respondents indicated they had been encouraged to ask questions
The group thanks NW & CM for the work undertaken on this questionnaire. CW agreed to take back the report to discuss with team leaders.
JS confirmed that interpreting at FRE is usually over the phone, KK asked whether if a young person is unhappy with an interpreter provided at an interview would UKBA stop the interview? JS - yes, for FRE's using telephoned interpreting they'd stop and call another interpreter.
Discussion -
CW confirmed interpreting at FRE is generally via telephone and for substantive interviews usually face to face.
CW/JS confirmed that in more cases now FRE's were being conducted over the phone, and in general this appears to be with the social worker. JD asked if this was national or regional change and what the purpose of the FRE then was. CW confirmed that policy of UKBA was to still conduct FRE and give YP option of whether they wish to come to Solihull for this, but recognition of the specific pressures of the size of this region and staff and social work time were one reason for the current approach. Regional office stress that current process is tied to the national one.
The group identified that the social work staff particularly might provide further explanation of the NAM process to young people, consideration should be given as to what additional information/ resources social workers require in this role.
RS noted that often they legal representatives often are not seeing UASCs until after the FRE and that children were not always clear as to who their case owner was neither did they understand the NAM process. JD confirmed that named caseworkers do not appear to be seen by UASCs in many cases, but acknowledged that and the size of this UKBA region may make this more difficult.
It was felt that UKBA might do more to advise a young person that they can still request an FRE at Solihull if they wish.
The serving of asylum decisions in person by Case owners again does not seem to happen in all cases in the region. CW notes that decisions on how/ when to serve decision are made often in discussion between case owner and social worker.
DL noted her LA had been doing some work with a group of young people in the leaving care team to explain and clarify expectations of the FRE process. KK notes something similar is being done in Leicester. Might it be possible to develop a specific briefing for social workers/ vol sector and young people/ DVD etc done by young people for young people on the FRE and wider NAM minors' process? DL/ CW /DN to follow this piece of work up, also discuss with Save the Children and Children Panel. JD to identify at national level whether anyone has done something similar? CW to explore resource implications. DN to discuss with LSC.
East of England issues
SG noted previous concerns on the UASC reform programme (discussed under point 3). JD asked whether screening of UASCs at Oakington was an issues, SG not aware of any of their areas UASCs having to be screened their, Swaffham is still were screening interviews can be arranged, Officers tend to either come out to the LA or use Norwich Police Station.
UKBA code of practice on keeping children safe from harm
UKBA had published a draft code of practice on 31st Jan 08, comments were to be made by 25th April. The document represents a commitment from UKBA to place the safety of children who it deals with in its business (and those contracted to act on its behalf) on a more formal footing. UKBA had organised a regional consultation event 9th April, which CW/ DN/NW had attended, as had a number of Local Safeguarding Board representatives. The need to ensure that the code and subsequent guidance reflected the local and regional approach ( particularly at an operational level) to safeguarding concerns was raised, as was the suggestion that UKBA include training input from LA/ LSCB , or encourage staff to access LSCB multi agency courses which are run.
The code raises some questions in relation to work with UASCs in terms of how it might revise existing policy and procedure. CW notes possible implications in relation to accommodation of adults and age dispute cases, families in sec 95 and escorting services.
DN noted it raised questions as to UKBA current interpretation of the responsible adult, and dealing with age dispute case guidance. It also provided a welcome focus on the need to do more for missing uascs and have greater regard for potential victims of trafficking. Suggestions were also made about the level of advocacy available to children to enable them to use the code of practice to raise concerns. At a regional level comments have been collected via the consultation event, WMSMP have also submitted a response. (Contact DN if you would like a copy)
KK raised question of how UKBA staff would deal with mental health issues for UASCs and the potential impact on NAM timescales. CW noted timescales should not be an issue when medical problems are involved, case owners would take such information into account and respond flexibly.
Paragraph taken out - Exemption applies information relates to unofficial statistics
Date of next meeting Wednesday 25th June 1.30 - 3.30
UKBA, Chadwick House, Blenheim Court, Warwick Road, Solihull
5