NAM Stakeholders Meeting 25/6/08

Midlands and East of England NAM minors segment stakeholders meeting 25th June 2008

Present : (WMSMP), (Refugee Council), (UKBA), (Walsall), (UKBA), (Coventry), (Refugee Council), (Staffordshire), (WMSMP)

Apologies : (Warwickshire ), (Solihull), (UKBA), (Worcestershire), (Save the Children), (Sandwell)

1. Action Points- feedback Point 1 JD noted the issue of UASCs being requested to sign statement at end of substantive interview where legal representative had not been present, has been taken forward by ILPA (Immigration Law Practitioners Association). It appears in some areas UASCs are being asked to sign documents without the presence of legal rep, not certain how prevalent this is in Midlands region. JD to send VM correspondence between ILPA.

Further discussion about the presence of legal representatives in interviews and advice UKBA was giving to social workers as to whether this was necessary. It was agreed that caseworkers need to be clearer about communication given to social workers/ UASCs about the availability and preference for individuals having legal reps present at screening and substantive interviews. UKBA asked to provide a clear statement re attendance of legal representatives at immigration interviews. VM/JS confirmed that UKBA do not give guidance to suggest that representation is unnecessary. JS confirmed the level of attendance by legal reps was quite low. DN Monitoring legal representation should be a function of the group.

Further clarity on whether case owners will ask young people if they are happy for substantive interviews to continue if there is no legal representative present (CW to action). It was also recognised that it is for Local Authorities to ensure that the UASC has legal representation and that they confirm attendance at key immigration interviews with this rep. Further evidence on the non- attendance of legal reps to interviews should be collated by all agencies. Action : the group monitor attendance of legal reps at interviews for the period 1st August – 30th September, and report back to DN, VM agreed to email caseworkers to identify legal reps who were not attending interviews for a month period ( Subsequent discussion with JS at User group – JS will collate information from caseowners for interviews were representative is not present and identify firm, this will be collated for August and September, LA’s and Vol sector to provide feedback to DN for the same period)

1 JS provided a copy of a substantive interview transcript with individual data blacked out was produced. This form covers the application for National Insurance Number and also the substantive interview note- it was noted interviewees were required to sign to show: i. receipt of correct details ( for the NINO). ii. proof that a copy of the interview record form was provided to them. The wording was felt to be misleading, but did not constitute advance consent to the details of the interview. Action : JD agreed to raise this with the policy unit.

Correction point 4 DVD – DL notes correction to minutes of last meeting, they should read that Staffordshire had been doing a DVD to communicate specific information to young people in the leaving care provision, this was not on FRE’s etc, it was the idea of using DVD as a medium for communicating FRE contact with young people that was suggested, and DL was awaiting further contact from and CW to follow this up.

2. UASC reform DN reported there had been no further news on where UKBA were taking the reform programme, an announcement was still expected, but we understand that there has been no further response in relation to some LA’s within the region undertaking some modelling of increased case load and impact on costs/ wider LAC support and placement availability. The working group on age assessment has continued to meet.

3. FRE Update DVD idea still to be followed up by CW. NW also agreed to raise this with Save The Children as a possible piece of work. JS reported that the FRE report undertaken by Refugee Council and Save the Children had been sent to case owners, not a great deal of feedback received, although the positive outcomes had been commented on by some individuals. The group noted ongoing concerns as to the level of involvement and understanding the young person has of the NAM process and FRE specifically if there is an increasing use of telephone FRE’s, which are generally a conversation between caseworker and social worker. What action can UKBA the to ensure that FRE is more 3- way and inclusive of the child ?

JS advise the group that UKBA are starting to book interviews 8 weeks in advance, with the expectation that the case owner would still be contacting the social worker to discuss FRE options.

4. UKBA Code of practice for keeping children safe from harm No update available from UKBA at this time as to when the interim recommendations from the consultation on the Code with be released. JD noted that the Government announced to day that it will take on a duty of welfare as well as safeguarding children, this would not be under section 11 ( children’s legislation), but would be incorporated into new Immigration Bill. The group welcome this change from UKBA.

5. Update from user group

2 The User Group met a month ago, and provided an update on the children’s panel and casework process which had been well received. The group had asked whether sample age assessments could be brought to the next meeting. This meeting did not consider this was the most appropriate forum to undertake such a discussion, LA’s via the West Mids regional UASC group coordinated a number of age assessment training sessions, and it was felt more appropriate to have staff undertake specific training re this issue.

DN noted the purpose of the User group was to develop clearer understanding of the roles and the specific parameters which caseworkers and LA\ vol sector practitioners worked within. It was felt that the issue of age assessments would be more usefully discussed if an LA rep provided an overview of the process they undertake, and UKBA also provided a response to what they do re age assessment and how any differences of opinion might be resolved. JS & NP to take this forward for user group. Agreed DN to advise User group members not to spend time picking out age assessments for User group, however key themes could be noted.

JD noted the work of the age assessment task group link to uasc reform, and how their recommendation might impact further work on the age assessment process.

SB noted specific issue with age assessments and the DWP. It appears that some LA’s are sending copies of full age assessment to DWP in relation to proof of age for benefit claim , this was not seen to be appropriate by those present. (DN to raise at next UASC LA group) Action- follow up the sending of UASC assessments to DWP at next LA meeting.

Action- to give a illustration of the process at the next meeting. (This will now be Cornelia from Solihull)

6. Local Authority and Voluntary sector updates A number of issues had been raised from Solihull, some of which it was agreed would be followed up at the next meeting with further detail.  Changing UKBA documentation when age assessment shows new age. UKBA staff required further clarity on whether this related to ARC cards or whether they were NAM cases. SB noted this different age documentation does create real problems for accessing benefits for some young people. VM suggested in cases where there are problems in changing age on documentation LA staff should contact the Team Leader for the section.  Agreement on exact date of birth within a given year. It was noted that was no exact agreement on age is possible standard 01/01/XX dates are given, this does create problems for all concerned, an has some impact re education. Advice again is to consider such cases with case owner and Team Leader if no resolution at that stage. The mandatory use of 01/01 could be revisited at a national policy level, Action- JD to look into possibility of changing default birth date for unknown ages  UKBA action on cases where AIT in their decision had judged individual was a child but NAM caseworker appeared unwilling to accept this. Ngoma of the

3 children’s panel had raised this as an issue, it was hoped we have some further case details, but NW agreed to follow this up and liaise with VM re specific case. It was agreed that stakeholders required clarification as to what the basis of such a decision was, and viewed that all evidence UKBA held in relation to age dispute/ concerns should have been aired within the AIT. Agreed that further information would be provided on this next meeting. It is not known how many cases are involved. It was appreciated that in some cases UKBA may have additional evidence in relation to a person and their age, however, it was felt that this should have been produced for the AIT for the judge to take account of in their decision. This case raised the question as to even if UKBA were to appeal decision, individual should still be treated as minor now until new decision is reached.  Withholding information gained at substantive interviews – a brief discussion occurred as to this issue, but we agreed that further comment from Solihull on the type of information being withheld was required. Ask to raise next meeting. UKBA raised point that you would expect responsible adult or social worker present at substantive i/v to pick up any issues re deception/ false identify etc? It was noted that social workers are still not routinely present at all stage of NAM process, also legal reps are not always attending substantive i/vs. There is a need to communicate e.g. age issues to social services if they arise at substantive interview. If an interview is practicing deception, a caution may be given (rare).  Arrests of individuals at substantive interview – Again further information required from on this issue, the view of the group was it was more likely for individuals to be arrested for multiple/third country cases concerns at screening? Problems arise (including an example) where applicants are arrested for multiple application offences- e.g. being seen as an adult but charged/convicted as a minor- one case in Solihull. Follow up next meeting.  NW noted that the children’s panel would like to see referrals for young people who end up in detention.

8. UKBA Updates provide the following update, a statistics sheet is attached to the notes. Current caseload -  Still high proportion of Afghan claims  Noted 10-15 Bangladeshis- not sure if UASC or not, 3 Bangladeshis came with others, issues related to their living arrangements. Responsible adult is usually established at screening. Concerns re any responsible adult in such cases are raised via the normal routes. UKBA do undertake checks on those presenting as responsible adult in such cases, and refer to LA were appropriate.  Chinese cases mostly women and who generally go missing- questions as to what action is being taken were raised, re concerns on trafficking? VM noted LA contact for those who are UASC, and refers to Police in relation to going missing, asylum claim will remain as a file, with case staying open, although a decision would be made on information available.

4  In relation to FRE’s JD asked whether in discussion between case owner and social worker that young people are also offered to option of attending Solihull in person for FRE.

Action- RC to ask UKBA to record responsible adult’s relationship to applicant.

Action- Make sure same person is at screening as the responsible adult- mainly for non social worker responsible adults.

9. Active reviews VM commented that guidance on active review is still being developed. The group raised the following questions : - What is happening to 18+ whose leave is expiring/expired? Some are applying for continued leave as in normal process, some it appears are not. It is important that Social Work staff / advocates are aware of the need to reapply prior to DL expiring, it appears UKBA do not send any specific reminder at this point, this might be form part of the active review guidance? - DN suggested a short summary paper for UASCs about applying for leave on age restricted aspects. VM to raise with colleagues.

10. Legal services of the Legal Services Commission would talk to be given in the next User group meeting, including the fielding of questions about access to legal services in region.

11. AoB - Sue- has a 20 year old from Stafford who is awaiting deportation, but is appealing with a new solicitor as an ADULT- where does this leave Sue? If successful, support from NASS, and Sue continues as normal until 21, at 21, he can go to the adult support system. - Can there be a newsletter / bulletin of some kind, which collates all of the issues which are being raised and changes in policy or practice. DN, RR & CW to consider. - DL notes price of travel/ time and asked whether we might relocate and/or combine with other meetings, eg the Local Authority meeting in Birmingham? Group to discuss at next UASC regional meetings and consider options. DN reaffirmed the different aims of specific meetings, e.g. Stakeholder and User group and West Mids regional UASC meetings.

- Richard has arranged another meeting at MEU 4th July(check dates) meetings with MEU about the suitability of waiting times/ getting to meetings etc. Includes removal and resource issues, and staff response. Date of next meeting 20th August at Chadwick House, Warwick Road, Solihull 1.30-3.30 p.m.