Local Authority Support to People with No ... - Islington Council

stop the removal of families but it does have the power to make recommendations which would better
serve the well-being and safety of the children involved in the removal process. In the event of a
disagreement between the Panel the UKBA the decision is referred to the Minister for a final
decision.
Chris Spencer described some of the changes in practice which had already taken place within the
agency as a consequence of the Panel's input. For example, the engagement of the children and
young people themselves in the process which can be a totally disruptive experience for them if they
have not been properly prepared for the event. UKBA have already begun to train specialist
casework officers to deal more effectively with families by creating a positive relationship with them
through more consistent contact. Chris felt it is a good thing that the UKBA have opened themselves
up to independent scrutiny in this way so that they can learn from independent experts in the field of
safeguarding. Chris also mentioned that the welfare services at the Pre-Departure Accommodation
were being provided by the Barnado’s group who again will be offering their expert advice in how to
prepare families for removal. The PDA facility will be available in August and will be the final part of
the new process to be in place.
The new process had not come into effect until March of this year and up to the point of the
presentation just two families had been removed via the new process. This number is expected to
grow when the PDA goes live in August.
Questions and Answers
Following the presentations, delegates were invited to ask questions relating to the issues raised.
One delegate commented that they were aware of Libyan students in the UK that are becoming
homeless because the UK government froze the Libyan government’s assets, from which student
grants were given. Hugh explained that the UKBA had had some success in unfreezing assets for
Libyan students in the UK and were continuing to work to unfreeze these assets
One delegate raised the issue of clients being unable to pay for fees for Article 8 Human Rights
applications. A legal representative explained that a waver of this fee should be available to people
with NRPF but in practice this may be difficult to obtain. 3
One delegate raised the issue of the lack of UKBA activity when an application for leave to remain is
refused, leaving individuals and families in limbo. Hugh advised that LITs should be consulted to
attain information on the stage of return for an individual or family.
Two questions arose regarding support available to post-18 former UASCs leaving care following the
test case SO v Barking and Dagenham. Sue explained that Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act
support cannot be considered by local authorities as ‘otherwise available’ and it falls on the local
authorities to provide support under the Leaving Care Provisions. Jonathan explained that Leaving
Care Provisions are excluded by Schedule 3 NIAA and if post-18 former UASCs fall into one of the
excluded categories, a Human Rights Assessment must be carried out to determine whether support
should be provided.
One delegate raised the issue of inconsistencies of practice in the North West of England. Jonathan
explained that often expertise on NRPF is centred in a local authority that provides advice and
3 Fee waivers for immigration applications are only available to destitute people applying for ILR under the
Domestic Violence Rule
NRPF Network/British Red Cross Conference Report June 2011 10