EAST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC MIGRATION PARTNERSHIP
UASC TASK GROUP
1st April 2009
Attendees
Connexions NottsJane Oakley
Leicester City CouncilSteve Bond
Leicestershire County CouncilJane Scannell
Leicestershire County CouncilVictor Cook
LGEM Sarah Short
Lincolnshire County CouncilJenny Folkes
Lincolnshire County Council Anne Earle
Northamptonshire County CouncilDelphine Carlile
Northamptonshire County CouncilNigel Stock
Nottingham City CouncilDawn Godfrey
Nottingham City CouncilRichard Knight
Nottinghamshire County CouncilDawn Godfrey
Refugee ActionAidan Hallett
UKBA Vandha Maher
Apologies
None
1. Welcome and Introductions
Nigel welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2. Minutes of the last meeting held on 9th January 2009
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed. A couple of spelling errors were identified and have been amended. Steve clarified that the issue relating the grant claims was in fact the special circumstances grant.
3. UKBA Reform programme
Sarah introduced the discussion by referring to the recent email from Jerry Harland. Vandha Maher clarified that it was up to the East Midlands as a region to put a proposal together and ask for appropriate practical help.
Lincolnshire raised concerns that they had been told by UKBA that they were not part of the East Midlands, however Sarah explained that in terms of the Strategic Migration Partnership they were. If authorities wanted to work with authorities in other regions then that was permissible.
In terms of identifying an officer to do the modelling work, Richard Howarth, Team Manager in Northamptonshire was suggested as someone who might be interested
It was felt that the role would need a job description and person specification. It was agreed that the template from the West Midlands was needed as a matter of urgency. The feeling was that the group should go back to UKBA with what they felt was needed.
Action Vic to email the West Midlands’ service specification to the group.
Leicestershire wanted to see a cap on numbers in order to plan services more effectively. The relationship with front-end service was vital to the process. It was agreed that authorities saw the programme as an opportunity to strengthen what they are doing well.
Nigel felt that the group should be offering to shape the proposal for the East Midlands rather than asking questions, for example moving away from assessment centres. He also felt there needed to be further dialogue about reception arrangements and responsibilities for care leavers.
In terms of what was required in was discussed having a consortium with a lead authority. All the authorities would need to gain approval from their own decision-making structures before giving final commitment. As a group the consortium would then decide that they could taken a set number of UASCs at a unit cost. The group also needed to take advantage of economies of scale.
There were a number of unanswered questions including whether PCT costs were included and what negotiations should take place with PCTs and schools. It was hoped that the programme would address these issues.
Victor Cook, Jane Scannell and Dawn Godfrey volunteered to work on drawing up a job description and person specification for the project manager.
There was further discussion around post 18s and the responsibility for care leavers. There was discussion around the need for legislation to absolve local authorities responsibility of where appeal rights have been exhausted. There was acknowledgement of the human and emotional reality of dealing with someone who reaches 18 and it was felt more support from UKBA was needed. Victor raised the issue of removals and where young people would be removed. There needed to be further dialogue with UKBA and the Refugee Council. The current policy of destitution has not worked so more needed to be done around facilitating a safe return.
Nigel reported the simplification bill around section 4 support might apply to post 18s. UKBA reported that they were trying to promote voluntary returns surgeries with the IOM. There was concern expressed that UKBA rarely issue removal directions.
4. EM Migration Partnership update
Sarah provided a brief update on the EMSMP, with details of the next partnership meeting on 29 April. She provided details of the other task group meetings taking place.
5. Information exchange
Northamptonshire
Under 16- 8
16-17- 37
18+- 100
There was some discussion about what happens when a young person arrives at a different authority with no intention of returning to where they came from. The issue of 35 children supported by other authorities in Leicester was raised without any specific funding. UKBA say this is the responsibility of the child’s host authority. Steve Bond alerted to the group to a High Court judgement expected in June regarding Hillingdon and when Section 20 responsibilities end. It was hoped that the introduction of specialist authorities would address these issues.
Northamptonshire have been part of a “Staying put” pilot and the DCSF Care matters. Victor said he would welcome a common approach from DCSF on the issue.
Leicestershire
Under 16- 103
16-17- 41
18+- 47
Lincolnshire
March 2009March 2008
a) looked after under 16's 13 8
b) looked after 16/17's36 17
Former UAC on NASS T18 support 1 1
c) Leaving care over 18's 19 11
We have also had 1 under 16 and 2 over 16's abscond within a few days of arrival this year
As you will see in comparison we are about 100% up on this time last year.
NottinghamCity
Under 16- 12
16-17– 53
18+-54
Nottinghamshire
Under 16- 11
16-17- 24
18+- 16
Leicester
Under 16- 2
16-17- 6
18+- 21
Derby
Under 16-7
16-17.1-10-12
18+-10-12
These showed an increase from last year. Derby reported claiming the special circumstances grant for previous year’s children in residential care.
6. Any other Business
Sarah raised a couple of items of any other business from the Leicester New Arrivals Group. The first related to an increase in the numbers of young Afghan boys in the City. This was a pattern that was replicated elsewhere in the region. In terms of private sector foster agencies Northamptonshire would share details of the Birmingham provider and Lincolnshire the details of the provider in Peterborough.
Secondly the reliability of the NRUC data. It was acknowledged the data was only as good as what was provided. Northamptonshire confirmed they have been running training on NRUC.
7. Future Meetings
- 9 July 2009, 2.00-4.00pm – LGEM
- 14 October 2009, 2.00-4.00pm - LGEM