Elected Officers – Urgency
Planning better outcomes and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children / Item no:
Report by: / Helen Johnston / Job title: / Head of Children’s Services
Date: / 25 May 2007
Contact Officer: / Helen Johnston
Telephone: / Email:
Summary / The report provides a background to the Home Office consultation Planning better outcomes and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Attached to the report is the draft response to the consultation from the Local Government Association, London Councils and other regional agencies providing support to asylum seeking children
Recommendations / The Elected Officersareasked to approve the response to the consultation on reforms to support unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

Planning better outcomes and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children

Background

  1. In February 2007, the Home Office published a consultation on Planning better outcomes and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC).
  2. As the majority of unaccompanied asylum seeking children are in London, the priorities of London Councils and the Local Government Association are aligned and, as with other campaigns on asylum seekers, it is proposed that the associations submit a joint response, along with other regional bodies and chief officer networks.
  3. The response has been drafted by a steering group of officers from the local government associations, local authority chief officers, the Refugee Council and the Office for the Children’s Commissioner.

Home Office proposals

  1. The paper begins with an acknowledgement that many of the current arrangements for the support of UASC are of a high standard, most UASC remain in the UK until they reach adulthood and that the legal framework for the support of UASC is the same as that for other looked after children. It goes on to say that, whilst this framework works well for those whose asylum applications are successful, it does not currently work as well for those whose applications are unsuccessful.
  2. The consultation makes the case that while some local authorities have developed good quality services, others have not and that this is not surprising given that there are fluctuations in demand for services, making investment in procurement difficult and placing unrealistic demands on some services. It suggests that high concentrations of UASC in some areas increases costs and can have a detrimental effect on the provision of services for other looked after children. Conversely, low numbers can make it unrealistic to provide a range of services. It is then suggested that improvements could be made within the following areas:
  • Specialisation –UASC should be treated as a specialist group of looked after children, because of their particular circumstances, likelihood of additional needs and the risk of exposure to trafficking.
  • Consistency – different authorities currently use different legal powers to provide services of different quality at varying costs.
  • Geographical distribution – under existing arrangements, UASC become the responsibility of the services in the area where they first come to the attention of the authorities; this means that some authorities have large numbers of UASC and cannot restrict the numbers coming to them. It is suggested that new arrangements could mean that UASC are distributed more widely than at present, outside of the areas where they are currently concentrated.

Consultation response

  1. The response covers all of the consultation questions set by the Home Office and highlights a number of key points:
  2. The issues not mentioned in the consultation questions, particularly those around funding, need further exploration and full resolution, developed in partnership with all key stakeholders
  3. The current conflict between immigration legislation and children’s rights legislation needs to be reconciled to focus on the needs of the child
  4. Fundamentally, given the lack of incentives for local authorities to participate in this scheme, particularly around funding for asylum seekers leaving care, there is a question as to whether the proposals will work in practice.

Recommendation

  1. Members are recommendedto approve the response to the consultation attached at Appendix 1.

Financial Implications for London Councils

None

Legal Implications for London Councils

None

Equalities Implications for London Councils

London has the highest regional population of children in care, with 63% of England’s unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeking children.

Appendices

1 – the draft response to the UASC reform consultation

Background Papers

Planning better outcomes and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children, Home Office, February 2007,

Appendix 1

Response of Steering Group to

Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

1Introduction

1.1This document sets out the initial response of the following agencies to the Home Office’s consultation paper:

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

Welsh Local Government Association

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

It has been informed by contributions from the:

Refugee Council

Office for the Children’s Commissioner

1.2We welcome the publication by the Home Office of the consultation paper, Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. 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.

1.3It 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.

1.4The 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.

1.5However, 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.

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, whichwasconcerned 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

Key points:

  • 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.
  • Local authorities are still not receiving adequate funding to support asylum seekers, particularly asylum seeking children leaving care. Local authorities will need assurances that the funding shortfalls will be addressedif they are to participate fully with the proposed scheme.
  • 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 Mattersand Care Matters

2.1It 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 ‘looked after children’. Like most other ‘looked after children’, 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.

2.2In 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. 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. 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.

2.3The 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.

2.4The 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 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 genuinely to 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)

3.1Broadly speaking, we welcome the key principles of the NAA that 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.

3.2Unfortunately, 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 has been developed alongside theminors’segment of the NAA has meant that the two projects have not been adequately aligned. 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.

3.3We 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 and 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 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.

3.4NAA 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 in which it 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

4.1The 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. It would be helpful that the Home Office provide this with the comparative analysis for all looked after children. The Home Office will be aware that this is lower than the unit cost per looked after child in England established in the last children in need census (2003).

4.2The 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 ofthe 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. 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 migration – increasing or decreasing numbers. This is vital in order to encourage volunteers to become Specialist Authorities.

4.4Although 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 costsare based on historic recorded expenditure.

4.5The 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.