Annex B
Evidence from the Office of the Children's
Commissioner on the de-accommodation policy and practice of the
London Borough of Hillingdon
ARRIVAL AND
REFERRAL TO
HILLINGDON SOCIAL
SERVICES
1. The majority of unaccompanied asylum
seeking children (UASC) supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon
arrive at Heathrow airport. Such children are referred by the
Immigration Service either directly to the Asylum Intake Team
(AIT) [582]or
the Emergency Duty Team (EDT) if outside of office hours.
2. The AIT also receives referrals from
Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres. Where
an asylum applicant arrives and his or her claim to be a minor
is disbelieved by the Immigration Service, the child may be treated
as an adult and therefore detained. The AIT's role in such cases
is to attend the detained individual and determine whether the
local authority has a duty to them as a "child in need"
under Part III of the Children Act (1989). If the detainee is
found to be a child, he or she will released into the care of
the local authority.
3. New arrivals who are judged to be over
the age of 16 are placed in the "emergency rooms" at
a facility called Margaret Cassidy House—a remote setting
near to Harmondsworth IRC. The emergency rooms are shared accommodation
consisting of four beds to a room. Occasionally there are more
than four young people occupying "emergency rooms".
4. The first part of this paper refers to
the position for children who are already 16, deemed to be 16
or are nearing their 16th birthday.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT
5. In accordance with statutory requirements,
an initial assessment of the young person will be undertaken within
seven days of referral by the Asylum Intake Team (AIT). These
assessments take place at the AIT office at Weir House. Although
an initial assessment should be carried out within seven days,
some may be carried out more quickly for two reasons: first where
there is a perceived medical need or, second, where there are
doubts about whether the young person is in fact a child. This
latter possibility raises child protection issues as the emergency
rooms at Margaret Cassidy are shared. The AIT may be alerted of
the need to undertake a quick initial assessment either directly
by the Immigration Service, or the EDT at the airport or by one
of the "support workers" based at Margaret Cassidy House
( however, support workers at MCH are discouraged from using interpreters
due to costs).
HOUSING ASSESSMENT
6. If the initial assessment finds the young
person to be 16+ they will be sent for a "housing assessment"
by the Asylum Support Team (AST) who will check their "entitlement".
It appears that what is actually checked is their immigration
documentation. This may be to enable a claim to be made under
the "UASC grant" from the Home Office. The AST will
normally place the young person back in Margaret Cassidy House
where, if the child is over 16, he or she will be placed in a
single bedroom with shared cooking facilities. The local authority
employs "support workers" who are based at Margaret
Cassidy House but who do not sleep there. This is apparently to
avoid the facility being designated as a "children's home"
with the attendant requirement to register with the Commission
for Social Care Inspection and undergo inspection. Another facility—"Halls
Terrace"[583]
is used for UASC but this has no in-house staff. Outreach workers
are used to support the UASC accommodated there.
REVIEW MEETING
7. Once the placement has been settled,
the child is normally allocated a named worker. This can be a
registered social worker, but may be a "personal advisor",
or a "children's asylum worker". These second two groups
of staff are not registered social workers, but often undertake
the initial assessment and take part in the review. Staffing constraints
mean it is not always possible to allocate a named worker prior
to the first review meeting in which case a "duty worker"
who may be unknown to the child would attend with them on the
day of the review.
8. A statutory looked after child review
must be undertaken within 28 days of a child becoming looked after[584].
The process of "review" of the case would "normally"
take place between 21 and 28 days, although it is not unknown
for this to happen more quickly—within a week or two of
the initial assessment (and even on occasion within a few days).
These reviews are chaired by an Independent Reviewing Officer
(IRO) [585]with
the young person, their allocated worker (or a "duty worker")
and an interpreter ordinarily being present. The purpose of the
review is to monitor the child's well-being, progress and future
to ensure that, in accordance with their statutory duty under
section 22(3) Children Act 1989, the child's welfare is being
safeguarded and promoted. Normally, the review would have before
it information from professionals, carers, teachers etc to enable
it to determine whether the child needs to remain looked after
or can be rehabilitated with his family or found a permanent placement
with another family. In the case of UASC children, the only information
that will be before the review is the initial assessment, which
is a short and fairly superficial document, generally containing
information from the child alone, with perhaps some medical information.
9. The practice at these first review meetings
is for the IRO to make a decision to "de-accommodate"
a young person if they have already reached the age of 16 or will
have reached that age by the time they are de-accommodated. The
date for "de-accommodation" is generally set for just
over 13 weeks from the initial assessment, the minimum necessary
time period before a child can be considered eligible to receive
leaving care services.
10. Prior to any decision being made about
the child, it is the duty of the IRO to ensure that the child's
views are understood and taken into account. [586]The
local authority are also under a duty to ascertain the child's
wishes and feelings regarding de-accommodation and to give due
consideration to those wishes, having regard to the child's age
and maturity (section 20(6) Children Act 1989). In order to have
an effective consultation and for a child to be able to express
their wishes and feelings about remaining in the looked after
system, the child needs to understand what is being proposed.
There is no indication that UASC children in Hillingdon receive
clear advice on the difference between being in the looked after
system and receiving services under leaving care provision. These
children do not appear to have access to independent advocates
who can explain these differences, nor is it clear that the IRO
ensures that children's wishes and feelings on this issue are
considered, despite the duty on the IRO to assist the child to
obtain legal advice and an advocate if necessary. [587]
11. The IROs chairing the reviews of UASC
children appear to be registered social worker employees of Hillingdon.
The Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991[588]
permits the appointment of social workers employed by the local
authority in question as an IRO, but the appointee must not be
involved in the case, or be under the direct management of a person
involved in the management of the case. In addition the IRO must
not be under the direct management of a person with control over
the allocation of resources allocated to the case. [589]It
is not clear, in the case of Hillingdon, that the IROs appointed
fulfill the criteria. Clearly all IROs are affected by the policy
of their employer, the London Borough of Hillingdon, supported
by the Children and Families Divisional Management Group and the
Child Protection and Review Section, to de-accommodate UASC children
after 13 weeks and thus arguably comes under the direct management
of a person with control over the allocation of resources allocated
to the case. The Green Paper on "Care Matters" has expressed
concern over the lack of independence of IROs, and the potential
conflict of interest that arises from using local authority employees.
We would submit that Hillingdon provides a very clear illustration
of the problems faced by children where the chair of the review
is not a totally independent reviewing officer.
12. Prior to the third quarter of 2006,
the general practice was for the AIT to carry out a more in-depth
assessment of the child, known as a "core assessment"
before the child's case was transferred to the "Youth Asylum
Team" (16+ team). This does not now happen and it appears
unlikely that any core assessment is in fact conducted before
"de-accommodation" takes place. The failure to undertake
a core assessment prior to de-accommodation means that decisions
are made at the review on the basis of very sparse evidence.
13. The most striking feature of the arrangements
after the third quarter of 2006 is the clear policy to de-accommodate
children after 13 weeks. The decision does not appear to be based
on a needs assessment, nor is there proper consultation with the
child, or informed consent on the part of the child as required
by law. In addition, in most cases there has been no effective
social work input into the decision, the case having been allocated
to a duty worker who is often not a registered social worker,
due to pressure of time. The decision to de-accommodate will result
in the child receiving a lesser form of service and a lesser form
of protection.
14. The duties owed to a looked after child
accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989 are quite different
to those owed to a care leaver. The local authority does not have
parental responsibility for a care leaver and does not owe the
duties of a corporate parent to such a child. Neither will a leaving
care child have an allocated social worker, or statutory reviews.
The local authority is under a duty to provide accommodation and
maintenance unless satisfied the child's welfare does not require
it, but apart from this there is merely a duty to keep in touch
with a "relevant" child (into which category the UASC
de-accommodated care leavers fall), appoint a personal adviser
and prepare a pathway plan.
15. The policy change on looked after UASC
by Hillingdon has not been publicly announced, and thus the reasons
for the change are unclear. However, it is likely that the need
to make financial savings play a part. By de-accommodating UASC
children after such a short period of time, social work time will
be saved, there will no longer be a need for statutory reviews,
saving IRO time and the services that will need to be offered
to care leavers are likely to be very considerably less than those
owed to looked after children. It has also been suggested that
reducing the numbers of "looked after" children, also
reduces the number of unallocated cases, thus shielding the authority
from criticism on this issue.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE DE
-ACCOMMODATION POLICY
16. It would seem that the de-accommodation
policy is endorsed by senior managers of the Children and Families
Divisional Management Group (C&F DMG), while its compliance
and enforcement is being directed by the Child Protection and
Review Section (CPRS). At the level of the individual child, the
policy is being implemented by the allocated Independent Review
Officer at the first review meeting.
17. We are deeply concerned that UASC children,
who are frequently extremely vulnerable, are effectively being
removed from the looked after system without due regard to the
law, their needs or their welfare, and that their access to an
appropriate level of service is thus prevented or restricted.
We consider that the Hillingdon policy of de-accommodating UASC
children at 16 is inimical to these children and fails to adequately
safeguard and promote their welfare. We further take the view
that the policy violates the child's right to family life and
private life under Article 8 ECHR and discriminates against UASC
contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In addition, in introducing such
a policy it would appear that the best interests of the child
have not been the paramount consideration. The recent Green Paper
"Care Matters", states quite clearly that it is generally
undesirable for children to leave care before their 18th birthday
as most are unable to cope on their own below this age: the Green
Paper recommends that all children should remain in care until
they reach the age of 18. This applies to an even greater extent
to UASC who are frequently unable to speak English, and have nobody
exercising parental responsibility.
CHILDREN UNDER
16
18. Children aged under 16 on arrival do
not go through the same process. They are either placed in foster
care or in a children's home. There is strong pressure to de-accommodate
these children as they reach the age of 16 (when the grant arrangements
change and the local authority gets considerably less remuneration
from the UASC grant). This situation has led to numerous complaints
from children in this situation who frequently wish to remain
in their previous placement.
19. Under 16 UASC in Hillingdon are treated
differently to other, domestic, looked after children, a practice
which is potentially in breach of Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR.
The main provision for UASC is a dedicated children's home—"Charville
Lane"[590].
Where there is no placement available here they are generally
placed with a private fostering agency "out of borough".
Domestic children with a "local connection" are placed
in foster placements that are directly contracted by the local
authority. The decision to de-accommodate at 16 raises the same
issues as de-accommodation after 13 weeks. But, in addition, for
these children, de-accommodation at 16 can lead to placement change,
and as a result, loss of a school place, or difficulty in reaching
the school, as the local authority are not under a duty to provide
transport and children cannot afford to pay for such. transport.
Children moved at the age of 16 are also likely to lose valuable
social and professional networks.
Carolyn Hamilton
Senior Legal Adviser, Office of the Commissioner
for Children
Adrian Matthews
Consultant, Officer of the Commissioner for Children
6 January 2007
582 http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/php/ebc.php?id=36 Back
583
//www.hallsterrace.co.uk/ Back
584
(Reg 3 Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991). Back
585
Section 26(2A) Children Act 1989 and Reg 2A Review of Children's
Cases Regulations 1991. Back
586
Reg 2A(6) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991. The Regs
make it clear that legal advice and an appropriate adult should
be offered where the child is likely to want to make a complaint
or legal proceedings. Where the child is unable to understand
the consequences of the local authority's proposals, whether due
to age, maturity or simply ignorance of the English system and
what the meaning of what is being proposed, an advocate should
at the very least be appointed to assist the child to put their
views to the review and have their voice heard. Back
587
Reg 2A(7) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991. Back
588
As amended by the Review of Children's Cases (Amendment) (England)
Regulations 2004. Back
589
Reg 2A(4) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991. Back
590
Charville Lane Children's Centre Back
| 
