West Midlands Regional No Recourse to Public Funds

West Midlands Regional No Recourse to Public Funds

Meeting of 19th March 2008

Present: Pete Olner (Birmingham), Richard Ross (Solihull), Rob Edge (Wolverhampton), Dave Newall (WMSMP)

Apologies:Carey Baff ( Birmingham), Geoff Tait (Wolverhampton), Patrick Finnegan ( Coventry), Tom Holdcroft (Wolverhampton), Robina Khan (Sandwell), Lesley Walker (Walsall)

Notes from meeting of 16th January and matters arising

Protocol on children and families NRPF cases – CB to provide update at next meeting.
Legal Services meeting – CB had made contact with Legal, but they had been unable to make this meeting, CB to provide dates of further meetings to Legal Leads and ask them to consider joining us at our next meeting.

National NRPF group update

PO provided an update from the meeting of 21st January.

The work from the joint councils meeting, including Manchester and Westminster(also Solihull and Birmingham) on uasc costs and financial risks being incurred by Local Authorities had been raised. The final report was due to be raised at a meeting with Liam Byrne (Minister of State for Immigration) at meeting this month, but this meeting had not taken place at the time of our meeting.
The National NRPF project has secured further funding to continue for another year.
The Border and Immigration Agency were developing an immigration crime partnership, further details were awaiting, but PO agreed to contact Donna Woodward at the Midlands Enforcement Unit for an update.
The national group continue to discuss the issue of costs, numbers and information sharing and information on former uascs. The LB Islington team had collated a report on cost information from 15 Local Authorities in the country who were supporting a total of 977 individuals at a cost of approx £7.34 million. PO noted this did not include the caseload/costs from Birmingham.
The forthcoming review of access to health services for NRPF clients was also raised. (Update - DN understands the consultation on this is unlikely now until later in the year.)
PO also noted that the Home Office task force looking at NRPF cases has been disbanded, and therefore there s unlikely to be any joint report indentifying the types of cases and issues faced in support for a range of NRPF cases in the LA’s which the task force had been working with. (PO to clarify with Peter Hay whether the ADASS asylum task force can obtain any of the information which Heidi Nagel had been collating. DN to raise with Partnership Director and write to BIA re this issue)

Regional NRPF event 30th April

Information on the regional NRPF event had been circulated to the group, Peter Hay, Gail Adams and Dr Jacky Chambers should be speaking at the event, it is aimed at raising awareness of the issue and impact within the region, and also seeks to develop a broader understanding of the roles which the Statutory and Voluntary sector play in work on this issue. Hopefully the issue of commonality between sectors could be identified as a useful outcome of the group. CB and DN are involved in the planning group for the event.

Maternity Mortality and Migration report and suggested actions

DN provided an overview of the report and key recommendations. The report had been sent to Directors of Adult Services, Directors of Children’s Services and Directors of Public health in the region.

It was noted that Birmingham Health and Wellbeing Partnership are taking a number of recommendations from the event on 6th February forward. A meeting has been arranged between the voluntary sector and CB to consider current processes with NRPF cases in Birmingham, an invitation has also been made to the adult’s team to attend the meeting.

DN & Dr Jacky Chambers had a meeting planned with Gail Adams, BIA’s regional director to discuss the report recommendations.

It was suggested that further consideration be given to the report at our next meeting. It would be useful to identify any potential actions from the report at a local level, specific actions might include the following:

Identification of the numbers and arrangements in place at a local level for women who are pregnant and NRPF. What evidence exists or data is being collected locally on infant mortality and births to non UK born women.
What links exist between health and your NRPF work as LA’s in your area, are exiting protocols functioning effectively, are health colleagues aware of the work that your LA is undertaking on the NRPF agenda ? Is there a need to improve referral and assessment processes between health (and the different parts) and social care?
How might the need for further training and awareness raising amongst staff in a range of agencies who might deal with NRPF cases be taken forward at a local level, any suggestions at a regional level? Who might lead on this matter?
Can you identify in your area who might be the lead health professionals who are addressing public health and work on infant mortality/child and maternal health?
How is your LA seeking to respond to the specific recommendations in the report related to Local Authorities?
Is there a need for a specific meeting on the NRPF agenda at a local level to consider the issues raised within the report?

(ALL to action)

RE noted that as part of the work of the asylum team in Wolverhampton they have introduced options for a 1 day placement for health and social work colleagues in their team to develop further understanding of the asylum system and support available.

Data requirements from BIA

BIA had been unable to send a representative to the group, but DN had received an email from Phil Pendleton who is the stakeholder relations manager for BIA in this region. Phil asked us to clarify what kind of information we would require from BIA that would assist in our work.

The group discussed this matter and suggested that BIA might provide information on the following:

Information on numbers going into Stone Road
Information on NAM decision rates in the region, and other legacy case decision rates (this would be useful in terms of refusals, but also benefit wider refugee settlement work)
Breakdowns of dispersal into areas within the region, better mechanisms to isolate the information at a ward level.
Information on the numbers of new arrivals into dispersal areas over a year period.
Removal information by nationality and dispersal area
Information on section 4 applications and grants by type, it would be useful to get specific info on the numbers accepted for section 4 on basis of late stages pregnancy or unfit to travel.
A briefing from BIA on average lengths of time for processing applications, and the length of time taken to allocate accommodation. Number of cases and reason for out of area/ region (West Midlands) offer of accommodation, and numbers of non acceptance of section 4 offer of support would also be useful.
Mechanism to explore whether applicants have submitted/ had decision on section 4 application.

This information would help inform service planning and identify areas and/or issues where increase in demand for LA or other services might increase due to destitution. It could help to correlate the increase/ reduction in demand for LA and vol sector services by enabling comparisons to be made between service demand and NAM/ Case resolution processes.

Section 4 provision of services or facilities and implications for LA support

DN had brought application forms to the group for new provision of services or facilities for section 4 users. BIA now have arrangement in place where individual on Sec 4 can claim travel monies for specific appointments e.g. health/hospital, can apply for a maternity payment and additional voucher support for under 1’s 1-3 year olds.

Group to consider whether the adoption of section 4 rates in setting support might need to be reviewed now in relation to this additional award. Individual LA’s to consider response to this issue.

PO raised question as to whether LA’s are paying for Birth Certificates in cases where client has a child.

Group suggested BIA is approached for feedback as to how the new process is working, and whether differences are being experienced between legacy cases and those who were formerly NAM cases. (DN to action)

Council Tax

RR had raised the question as to how LA’s were dealing with payments for council tax in properties where they support clients. PO noted that for single adults they pay a specific rate to the landlord who includes a proportion for council tax, usually based on a third of band A council tax rate, and assumption that the property will be occupied by 3 adults. They had moved t ensure that Landlords became responsible for the council tax element in the arrangement they made. The picture does show some variation within the region, part dependant on the length of time individuals have been in NRPF support system.RR notes a mixed picture with the UASC support issues, but moves had been made over the past few years to develop similar arrangements as PO had outlined. No one was able to comment on the specific situation for NRPF family cases. Action: Could colleagues in children’s services comment for next meeting?

Costs and case load information

Membership of the group

Due to the low attendance at meeting we agreed that items 8 & 9 were put

back to out next meeting.

Any Other Business

Training – PO noted that Birmingham City Councils legal services team had developedsome specific training for specialist staff on Human Rights assessments, also general assessment guidance and looking at article 3 and article 8 issues. The legal team may be able to provide some specific training for a nominal fee, can individuals indicate the level of interest in this from their departments? PO would liaise with the team and identify some possible dates.

Date of next meeting - Thursday 29th May 2.00 p.m. -4.00 p.m at the Regional Partnership Centre, Albert House, Quay Place, Edward St, Birmingham. B1 2RA