Children s Services Committee

Transcription

1 Children s Services Committee Date: Tuesday 28 June 2016 Time: Venue: 10am Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich SUPPLEMENTARY A g e n d a 9 Educator Solutions Report by the Executive Director of Children s Services 11 Proposals announced by the Immigration Minister unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Report by the Executive Director of Children s Services Page A2 Page A7 13 Exclusion of the Public The committee is asked to consider excluding the public from the meeting under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 for consideration of the item below on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by Paragraphs 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee will be presented with the conclusion of the public interest test carried out by the report author and is recommended to confirm the exclusion. 14 Strategic Partnerships Report by the Executive Director of Children s Services Page A17 Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH Date Supplementary Agenda Published: 24 June 2016 If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Customer Services on or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. A1

2 Children s Services Committee Item No 9 Report title: Educator Solutions Date of meeting: 28 June 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen, Executive Director Children s Officer: Services Strategic impact Educator Solutions (a trading function of Norfolk County Council [NCC]) provides services to schools, academies and other education providers, including support for teaching and learning, and governors and leaders, as well as for finance and HR. It also operates services directly to children including the Music Service, Holt Hall and Whitlingham Outdoor Education Centre. These services, purchased from Educator Solutions or brokered from other NCC departments and trusted providers, contribute directly to the Council s priority of Excellence in Education, as identified in the improvement plan A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner. The creation and operation of Educator Solutions potentially provides for greater flexibility and commercial awareness and allows for a more positive brand development than would be the case if these services were offered traditionally through NCC s core business. Thus, the operation of a successful Educator Solutions could enhance operational and strategic outcomes and drive down costs. It will also contribute to the improving education system in Norfolk. However, as with any form of change, it is not without risks. Executive summary Competition in the market place to provide services to Norfolk schools is greater than in previous years as other providers (many from outside the local government sector and many from outside the Norfolk region) have sought to increase their market share or otherwise enter the market for the first time. In addition, the growth of Multi Academy Trusts has led to some services being provided directly by Academy sponsors. The Educator Solutions business unit/entity recognises the opportunities presented by these developments and is a response to the changing market. Recommendations: Approve the continued provision of services to education as a focussed trading enterprise, competing as flexibly as possible under the brand name Educator Solutions for the remainder of 2016/17 and provisionally into 2017/18. In September 2016, officers will bring to Children s Services Committee an update, including a detailed income and expenditure account, along with an outline business plan. This will be followed up in April 2017 with a detailed and full business case including any structural inhibitors to be resolved. From this: A2

3 If elected members are satisfied that Educator Solutions has a robust and sustainable business model, annual income and expenditure account and medium-term financial plan, and are satisfied that risks are being effectively identified and managed, it is recommended that the Children s Services Committee advises the Policy and Resources Committee to approve Educator Solutions to operate as a private limited company, wholly owned by NCC from 1 st April If elected members are not satisfied at that point that the above has been or can be achieved and/or if the business profitability is declining and the strategic, operational or financial risk is deemed too great, it is recommended that the Children s Services Committee advises the Policy and Resources Committee to approve that Educator Solutions be given a further year (2018/19) to operate in the transitional phase or otherwise be wound down and fully returned to being a division of NCC Children s Services. That Children s Services Committee advises Policy and Resources Committee to retrospectively approve the creation of a dormant / shelf private limited company (wholly owned by NCC) with the name Educator Solutions Ltd, with Stuart Mullineux as Director and County Hall as the designated registered office/company address. 1. Proposal (or options) 1.1 Educator Solutions, recently known as Services 4 Schools (S4S) is an NCC trading function with its own distinct accounting arrangements in the council s accounts and its own brand which is used as a trading name for the provision of services. As from 1 st April 2016 it brings together over 375 permanent and seasonal staff from: Norfolk Integrated Education Advisory Services (NIEAS) Schools HR Schools Finance Business Support 1.2 Its vision is to be: the provider of choice to education establishments in Norfolk and beyond. 1.3 NCC has recently recruited for Educator Solutions a Head of Service with a broad range of business experience from the private sector along with recent experience of the academy sector in Norfolk and local authority transformation. 1.4 An Interim Board (Educator Solutions Board) has been created, which is chaired by the Assistant Director (Education), with the Children s Services Committee Chair as the Vice-Chair of the Board. 1.5 The Interim Board is responsible for setting the Vision and Business Strategy and ensuring that the business unit meets the requirements of NCC and other key stakeholders in the services provided. It directs and monitors the business unit to A3

4 complete the actions required to implement the set-up project and its ongoing performance as a sustainable traded services business unit. 1.6 In addition, an officer working group has been set up, to be chaired by the Finance Business Partner (Children s Services) with the remit to facilitate and remove inhibitors to the implementation of the strategy set by the Interim Board, consisting of officers from different departments and professional/functional backgrounds. This will help to ensure that there is a coherence to officers work, thus ensuring that progress continues to be made to address/resolve any issues at the earliest possible opportunity. 1.7 It is intended that the operation of Educator Solutions should be done on a basis as near to commercial principles as possible, in a transitional phase which may (depending on its performance) lead to its operation on fully commercial principles. The entity will produce monthly income and expenditure accounts (effectively akin to profit and loss accounts), and will develop a business plan showing future years strategy and associated financial projections. These will be scrutinised by the Educator Solutions Board and reported to the Director of Children s Services and the Director of Finance. 1.8 The performance of the entity throughout the current financial year will be used as a basis, along with future years projected business plans, for a recommendation by the Director of Children s Services and Director of Finance to the Children s Services Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee as to the future operating model/ direction of the entity, as captured in the Executive Summary. 1.9 In the current financial year (2016/17) various income and expenditure budgets have been transferred into dedicated Educator Solutions cost centres to be provided as part of the Educator Solutions brand, with detailed work currently being completed by Educator Solutions staff and core NCC finance staff to confirm that the creation/operation of the brand provides an opportunity for increased contribution and does not per se generate an increased financial burden to NCC. Governance 1.10 Educator Solutions Ltd was registered with Companies House on 15 April 2016 in order to secure the name of the company and protect the brand. The company is currently listed as a dormant company on account of the fact that it is not trading. Nevertheless, dormant companies still have legal obligations in respect of making various annual returns. The head of Educator Solutions has been in contact with NPLaw and is fully aware of those obligations, along with his own legal obligations as the director of the dormant company. In respect of the former, the Educator Solutions Board will be kept up-to-date re developments. 2. Financial Implications 2.1 The expectation is that Educator Solutions should be financially sustainable with a robust business plan and that the net cost of operation should, as a minimum, be no higher than the cost of operating the service within the NCC structure. It is acknowledged, though, that there may be some short-term increased costs required, as this often the case with newly created commercial ventures. A4

5 2.2 In the current financial year, Educator Solutions officers will produce detailed income and expenditure accounts and will further develop a business plan, which will cast light on the ability of the entity to drive down costs and to survive in the market place. 2.3 It should be borne in mind that Educator Solutions will be competing against rivals, many of whom have established reputations and lower cost bases arising from years of operating in the market. To the extent that Educator Solutions is developing its ability to expand its operations beyond county boundaries, so too it can be said that its commercial rivals are targeting Educator Solutions current customers, and those commercial rivals,in the short-term at least, may be able to take advantage of their established market presence. 2.4 Equally it should be borne in mind that if Educator Solutions were to become a separate company as of April 2018 or at any other point in time, there would potentially be an impact on the NCC net financial position. This is because, all other things being equal, NCC s existing overheads would remain the same but would be allocated across a smaller base (ie the council would no longer be able to charge overheads to Educator Solutions in the same way as it does other aspects of the council). 2.5 NCC could in theory charge Educator Solutions on a commercial contracted basis, but if Educator Solutions for example chose to take up other options, (eg to rent out a commercial building), then Educator Solutions would incur those costs and the council would have to allocate its buildings costs across other areas of its operation or otherwise review its asset management strategy. These diseconomies of scale potentially apply to a number of areas. Local Government Pension Scheme 2.6 A decision is still to be made on whether the entity would become an admitted body in the Norfolk Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). If it were to be admitted, that would mean that the pension rights accumulated by all transferring staff would continue on the same basis as if they were still employed by NCC. Staff transferring under this arrangement would then continue to be protected by relevant legislation re TUPE and pensions in their future employment. A further decision would need to be made re whether such a transfer (if actioned) would be on a closed basis ie: all new employees would not be able to join the scheme. Actuarial analysis will follow in a future report. 3. Issues, risks and innovation 3.1 Financial and legal implications are as referenced above. Staff were consulted, with involvement of the Unions, on the establishment of Educator Solutions, and further staff and Union consultations will take place if required as the project progresses in response to business needs. The two main risks to the outcomes for Norfolk children are; 1. If Educator Solutions is unable to compete equally with other providers in the market, it will not be able to respond in an agile manner focussed on the evolving needs to the customers who will chose to buy their services elsewhere. 2. If the services traded are not able to compete and demand declines, then the sustained and improving provision of independent experienced, expert A5

6 support currently provided to schools and academies to add to the improvement in outcomes for Norfolk children, will be lost. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with: If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Officer Name: Tel No: address: Karl Steenson (01603) Gordon Boyd (01603) Stuart Mullineux (01603) If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. A6

7 Children s Services Committee Item No. 11 Report title: Proposals announced by the Immigration Minister - unaccompanied asylum-seeking children Date of meeting: 28 June 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Executive Director Children s Services Strategic impact: Local authorities can volunteer to accommodate unaccompanied asylum-seeking children for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. There is no direct impact on the Council s ambition or four priorities, but there are significant resource implications that Members need to consider. Executive summary This report updates Children s Services Committee on proposals announced by the Immigration Minister on 13 May 2016 relating to new arrangements for accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC). This includes: The introduction of a new National Transfer Scheme for UASC already in the UK, to distribute them more evenly across regional authorities; Schemes to bring in vulnerable UASC who are new to the UK, and ensure they are evenly placed across local authorities, regionally and nationally. The new arrangements form part of the UK Government s response to the current migrant crisis which, since 2015, has seen one of the biggest waves of mass migration since the Second World War. It is right that all countries contribute to supporting children affected by these events and that Local Authorities play a full part in doing so. Government expects that efforts to accommodate UASC will be coordinated alongside local schemes to resettle Syrian refugees. The County Council is considering participating in the Syrian Vulnerable Person s Resettlement scheme, and the Full Council will make a decision about this on 25 July. In view of this, Policy & Resources Committee has requested the advice of Children s Services Committee on the County Council s response to the Minister s proposals. Across the Eastern Region Directors of Children s Services are committed to ensuring that unaccompanied asylum seeking children are welcomed and supported in having their needs met. Each Local Authority in the region should be part of this and cooperate in a system that means each UAS child is placed where they will receive the services they need to be safe and succeed. At present, the regional Directors do not feel the proposals put forward by the Home Office will achieve that aim. Consequently, they advised Home Office officials they could not recommend signing up to a voluntary resettlement scheme unless concerns over resources and administration were resolved. If this position changes before Full Council meets further advice will be provided. A7

8 Recommendations: That Children s Services Committee consider the Minister s proposals for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the implications for Norfolk, and provide advice to Full Council on 25 th July on the County Council s response. 1. Introduction 1.1 The national policy context The conflict in Syria and instability in other areas has triggered more than 1.2 million people from Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Eritrea to travel to Europe through irregular means to seek asylum Following the EU-Turkey Deal, many children are being detained in temporary facilities and, with the Balkan borders now shut, thousands of migrants are stranded along route, particularly in Greece where over 53,000 adults and children are stuck. Media coverage has highlighted the unsafe and unsanitary conditions in which many children are living In the UK, local authorities like Kent, Croydon and Hillingdon have seen unprecedented increases in numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Despite offers of support from other local authorities, Kent is looking after 900 UASC, 300 of whom have been placed outside the authority The Government s policy is to continue to target international aid i to assistance programmes in the regions neighbouring Syria and actively discourage people from risking the dangerous journey to Europe. In 2014 it established the Syrian Vulnerable Person s Resettlement (VPR) Scheme ii, to provide vulnerable people in camps around Syria with a route to the UK The new proposals for accommodating UASC have been developed to provide a humanitarian response to children affected by the crisis and reduce pressure on authorities like Kent, Bedford, Thurrock and Central Bedfordshire. 2. New arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children The new proposals announced by the Immigration Minister on 13 th May are as follows: 2.1 A new National Transfer Scheme, to be introduced in regional areas The new National Transfer Scheme will enable local authorities to transfer responsibilities for UASC to another local authority. This is the mechanism by which authorities such as Kent can relieve pressure by dispersing UASC to other areas, supporting a more even distribution of UASC The scheme is underpinned by the new Immigration Act Although the scheme is voluntary, the Immigration Act empowers the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to take UASC. In addition, the Act requires local authorities to publish transparent information about their current capacity for accommodating UASC, and if applicable - clear reasons why it is not possible to take part in the scheme. A8

9 2.1.3 The first phase of national transfer will take place from 1 July Local authorities with immediate capacity are asked to offer it to Kent, which has identified around 300 children for whom it would be in their best interests to move to another area, or from other local authorities with increased numbers to identify UASC to transfer All children who have been identified as suitable for transfer should have an assessment and care plan in place As part of this transfer scheme, local authorities can also offer to take on responsibility for children who are already living in their area but who are the responsibility of another authority - known as Other/Out of Local Authority (OLA) children. 2.2 A new regional model for distributing children across the country The transfer scheme will be delivered through a regional model rather than a council-bycouncil one. The aim is to facilitate a joined up approach to different migratory pressures, and allow flexibility in deciding the most suitable host authority for a child, based on local considerations. This should enable local authorities to pool resources and expertise, and support economies of scale necessary for specialist support services such as therapeutic care and English language tuition. It will also enable authorities with experience in caring for unaccompanied children to support those who are new to this area of work or have fewer UASC The Eastern region will be the first region to implement the transfer scheme Strategic Migration Partnerships (SMPs) iii, which have recently been tasked with coordinating the resettlement of Syrian refugees through the VPR scheme, will now also take on the coordination of UASC. It is likely that SMPs will be supported by a regional team but the responsibility for funding (e.g. whether this would be funded by central Government or locally pooled budgets) has not yet been agreed Due to the speed at which the Government is making provision to accommodate UASC in addition to 20,000 Syrian refugees, it is continuing to work out the logistics of the regional model with local authorities and the voluntary sector Further details are expected from the Minister and the East of England SMP shortly. 2.3 A new formula for guiding an authority s fair share of children A formula has been devised to assist the distribution of children across the country and guide an authority s fair share The formula is likely to entail a region accepting a proportion of UASC relative to its total child population. Based on current modelling, the Government expects that it would be reasonable to expect no region to exceed 0.07% of UASC of the proportion of the total child population in their area by the end of this year iv. The formula takes account of existing UASC populations in each area, as well as any transfers that have recently been agreed with other authorities When the 0.07% formula is applied to the East of England, it indicates that the region should accommodate 901 UASC, where currently 503 are accommodated An analysis of the 11 individual authorities in the region shows that three - Bedford, Central Bedfordshire and Thurrock already exceed the 0.07% formula, so would not be A9

10 expected to receive any additional UASC. These authorities would be able to ask others in the region to accept transfer of UASC. The focus will therefore be on the remaining eight local authorities to determine their response Norfolk is not on a major transport link, road, motorway or seaport, so at the present time UASC numbers are the lowest in the region If the 0.07% formula is applied this could be expected to increase to A draft National Transfer Protocol will be published shortly by the Department for Education. 2.4 The new Children at Risk Programme The new Children at Risk programme is being run as an arm of the Syrian VPR scheme. It is not limited to Syrian young people and will implement the Prime Minister s recent commitment to resettle up to 3000 vulnerable children from outside of Europe in the Middle East and North Africa regions v. The scheme will not target UASC specifically, but will include children who are travelling with extended family or community groups and who have been separated from their parents or close family, and vulnerable children, such as child carers and those at risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation. 2.5 Accommodating unaccompanied children who are already in Europe On 4th May 2016, following Lord Dubs amendment to the Immigration Bill (now Act), the Government announced its intention to begin resettling unaccompanied children who are already in Europe, specifically from Greece, Italy and France, who were registered there before 20 March and where it is in their best interests to do so Further consultation by central Government with local authorities is planned. The number of children supported under the scheme will be agreed in partnership with local authorities and addressed as part of the National Transfer Scheme. 2.6 The profile of UASC on the transfer scheme/new to the UK Little is known about the profile of young people on the transfer scheme. However, most are aged around years old, with all under age 18. The majority are male In general terms, UASC are likely to have a range of vulnerabilities and the care they will require will reflect this. Children may have been exposed to war-related trauma, challenging family dynamics associated with trauma and displacement, and stressors relating to separation from family and adjusting to life in a new country. They may have been exposed to abuse or neglect. It should be noted that they also display great resilience and self-reliance, having survived enormous challenges. Many of them are mature beyond their age and this combined with cultural expectations about transition to adulthood lead them to have difficulty accepting support as if they are children for example, there is a high rate of absconding from care with the intention of joining established communities from their own country and achieving economic independence Evidence shows that refugee young people are likely to present with needs above and beyond the usual pattern expected in the general population and will need new or additional service provision to address these. This includes: A10

11 Young people presenting with mental health problems, and requiring significant support from mental health services, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is particularly prevalent. Young people exhibiting behavioural problems in school, leading to permanent exclusions; Young people achieving poor educational outcomes, although many prove to be very committed to education and achieve highly. Risk of honour-based abuse and female genital mutilation if that is a feature of their own culture They are more likely to be victims of hate crimes and incidents, and will require further support in managing their response to this. 3. Next steps and key milestones 3.1 Whilst further details on the proposals are expected from the Minister and the East of England SMP shortly, the Department for Education is urging local authorities to consider the following: Whether there is regional agreement to adopt the new transfer scheme Whether there is agreement to accept new (new to UK) UASC directly - in accordance with the 0.07% formula Identify any OLA UASC in their area To identify any regional specific issues which may impact on the ability of local authorities to participate Confirm lead person 3.2 Early discussions with local authorities in the region confirm that they are committed to meeting the needs of UASC and sharing numbers more evenly. All involved feel a strong moral obligation to support these children. A number of children from Kent have been accepted within the region. However, regional Directors of Children s Services expressed concern about aspects of the proposed arrangements at a meeting on 17th June and advised representatives of the Home Office that they could not ask their Local Authorities to join a voluntary regional scheme unless these issues were addressed. The concerns included; Costs of support for UASC leaving care with liabilities on Local Authorities for young people up to the age of 25 proposed in the draft Children & Social Work Bill currently before Parliament. Costs to the Local Authority of financial support for those who are not given leave to remain beyond age 18 Costs of the regional Strategic Migration Partnership and staff within each authority required to coordinate arrangements. It was not clear that these arrangements offered any advantage over coordination by central government alone and might in fact increase delay in placing vulnerable children. A focus on Local Authority response without ensuring similar expectations of other agencies that commission services required to meet the needs of UASC eg mental health services. 3.3 Consultation is continuing with the Home Office and changes to the proposed arrangements may make a regional voluntary scheme something that Directors of Children s Services can recommend. A11

12 4. Issues for Children s Services Committee to take into account 4.1 This section summarises a range of issues that elected members will want to take into account in recommending a response to Full Council on the Minister s proposals: The importance of a compassionate response that acknowledges the needs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and offers them support to succeed in life. We are in a position to offer them a much safer place to live and opportunities that are far better than they have at present. the current capacity of services for Looked After Children s (LAC). The Council is at a critical stage of its improvement journey. Robust plans are in place to improve services for looked after children and strong progress is being made. However, Ofsted currently judges LAC services in Norfolk to be inadequate. Other services for children and young people, notably health services, face similar challenges and there is a shortage of support for those with poor mental health. In this respect, Norfolk is less well-placed than other Local Authorities to meet the needs of UASC at present and the concerns about resources would be very relevant in determining how many UASC Norfolk might be able to support. Asylum-seeking children could be successfully accommodated by the Council, subject to the development of a planned and sustainable scheme, and appropriate investment and actions to address key challenges. This would include: Further analysis prior to any decision-making by elected members to improve clarity about the capacity of existing infrastructure, the workforce, available expertise, training needs, interpretation services and the availability of registered foster carers able to take UASC. Accepting UASC without the proper capacity to meet their needs would risk the Council being in breach of statutory duties and possible adverse judgements from OFSTED. An analysis of phased options for accommodating UASC that would not compromise the Council s improvement journey. This would essentially involve accepting fewer UASC until our capacity is improved. Work with the wider community, co-ordinating activities with any local and regional Syrian resettlement schemes to maximise the availability of resources, infrastructure, interpretation, community support and management of refugee family reunion. This will be essential to prevent social exclusion and isolation. Ensure any Norfolk scheme is fully funded. Members should note that it is unlikely all additional costs will be met by new funding from central government. Children s Services already faces a challenging financial situation along with the rest of the Council. Any costs in excess of funding received could not be contained within the existing budget. If Members wish to act A12

13 compassionately in meeting the needs of UASC they will need to identify additional funding to support this. 4.2 Children s Services Committee will also wish to note that the new Immigration Act 2016 transfers more responsibilities to local authorities to support migrant people whose asylum applications have been refused and who have no further rights of appeal. This has potential to intensify an already upward trend in the number of people from abroad currently approaching the County Council for support. Children s Services is currently supporting in the region of 50 cases of children whose families have no recourse to public funds. 5. Financial implications 5.1 The financial impact on the County Council in a given financial year and over the medium-term will depend on several factors. These include the split of UASCs between the two age ranges (*) and the number of days within a financial year for which they are the responsibility of the County Council (both of these factors will have an impact on the income receivable and the expenditure incurred), as well as the type of care provided (semi-independent accommodation or independent foster care, being two examples), the costs of which can vary, sometimes significantly. 5.2 This makes it extremely difficult to predict the financial impact to NCC, but on the basis of costs incurred in previous years, the net cost could easily run into a high six figure sum, perhaps a worse-case scenario of a seven figure sum. This is not a compelling reason to refuse support but Members will want to be sure they can sustain the financial commitment. 5.3 The rates for accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have recently been revised, to take effect from 1 July In July 2016 the grant income available is increasing from 95 a day (up to 34,675 a year, based on 365 days) to 114 a day (up to 41,610 a year) for the under 16s. For those over 16, it is increasing from 71 a day ( 25,915 a year) to 91 a day ( 33,215 a year). It should be borne in mind that the income receivable from the grant cannot exceed the amount of expenditure incurred, although the expenditure incurred is not always new expenditure, as it can include apportionments of staff time. 5.4 The County Council would need additional staff. 100 additional UASC is less than 10% increase in our LAC numbers but would require a team of eight social workers, with associated management, business support, and overheads. Regardless of finance, Norfolk faces challenges in recruiting experienced social workers and it may be difficult to find suitably qualified staff. Experience in Kent shows a need for highly specialised skills that may require a bespoke training programme. These challenges should not determine Members response but may limit the pace at which we can respond to need. 5.4 The Government will be publishing a new grant agreement reflecting the changes and setting out the eligibility criteria shortly. 6. Alternative options 6.1 There are three options available for Members to recommend to Full Council that Norfolk; 1. sign up to the voluntary regional scheme proposed by the Home Office in its current form, noting the advice of the Director of Children s Services that this A13

14 carries unresolved risks around costs and the detailed operation of arrangements that may prevent Children s Services meeting the needs of UASC in accordance with statutory requirements and the standards expected by OFSTED unless Members commit to providing any funding required in addition to the income received. 2. refuse to sign up to a voluntary regional agreement on the grounds that it does not have the financial and staffing resources, quality of service provision, and services commissioned by key partners (such as mental health services) to meet the needs of additional UASC at present. National government may use its powers to place UASC in this instance and we will provide the best service we can to meet their needs. 3. delay decision on joining a voluntary regional agreement until further discussions with the Home Office have taken place that may resolve the concerns of regional Directors of Children s Services and provide assurance that the Council will receive the resources needed to support unaccompanied asylum seeking children to a good standard. Any UASC placed in Norfolk will continue to receive the best services we can deliver. This is the option recommended by the Director of Children s Services. 7. Recommendations Evidence Home Office/LGA guidance about the VPR scheme Prime Minister s announcements Letters from the Immigration Minister of 16 th April and 13 th May updating on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this report or want to see copies of any assessments, e.g. equality impact assessment, please get in touch with: Officer Name: Jo Richardson Tel No: address: jo.richardson@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone and we will do our best to help. A14

15 Annex 1 The Syrian Vulnerable Person s Refugee Scheme The scheme prioritises help for survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk, and those in need of medical care. It is estimated that around 30 per cent of refugees on the scheme have high needs. The scheme is voluntary. Refugees on the scheme are granted five years humanitarian protection, with leave to remain in the UK for five years. This gives eligibility for universal benefits, e.g. NHS healthcare, housing and employment benefits and all public funds. At the end of five years, if refugees are unable to return to Syria, they may be eligible to apply to settle permanently in the UK. Refugees selected for the VPR scheme are taken from camps around Syria and elsewhere in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The scheme will not accept people who have already crossed into Europe. Due to the speed at which the Government has had to make provision to accommodate 20,000 Syrian refugees, it is continuing to work out the logistics of the scheme with local authorities and the voluntary sector. However, a funding formula for local authorities has been published (the implications of which are summarised in Section 2 of this report). The Government has also now moved to a regional model for resettling Syrian refugees, coordinated by strategic migration partnerships, to facilitate a more effective regional response to migratory pressures and ensure efforts to accommodate Syrian refugees are integrated with related initiatives, for example, accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The regional model is also intended to support economies of scale for support interventions, such as English language provision and therapeutic care. Other routes to the UK Syrians who have crossed to Europe can claim asylum upon arrival or after-entry to the UK vi. They are then dispersed to asylum areas around the country. Norwich is one of three asylum dispersal areas in East Anglia (including Peterborough and Ipswich). More information about asylum dispersal in Norwich is included below. Number of asylum seekers in Norwich Norwich is one of three asylum dispersal areas in the East of England (including Peterborough and Ipswich), and therefore the only part of the county which takes asylumseekers. This was agreed with the Government 10 years ago. Asylum seekers are not eligible for public funds, but may be eligible for local authority support vii. There are 135 bed places in Norwich for asylum seekers. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) has announced its intention to increase this, but is having difficulties finding affordable accommodation to make it possible. A15

16 In practice, there are likely to be more than 135 asylum seekers in Norwich at any one time, due to people seeking asylum who are staying with friends or relatives and either claiming support on a subsistence-only basis, or no support at all. Asylum dispersal is a stand-alone process, distinct from refugee resettlement schemes such as the Syrian Vulnerable Person s Relocation (VPR) Scheme, Gateway and Mandate. Asylum dispersal deals with people who have already crossed to Europe to claim asylum. The Government s other refugee resettlement programmes In addition to the VPR scheme, the Government runs two programs for the resettlement of refugees: the Gateway Protection Programme and the Mandate Refugee Programme. These schemes are operated by the Home Office in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Gateway resettles approximately 750 vulnerable refugees from around the world each year. Mandate allows refugees from around the world with close family ties with the UK to be resettled in the UK. Refugees on Gateway and the VPR scheme can apply to bring family members to the UK through the Home Office s family reunion programme. i The UK has committed over 2.3 billion since 2012 to helping refugees in Syria and the region. ii On 7 September 2015, the Prime Minister announced that the scheme would accept up to 20,000 refugees over the next five years. iii Funded by the Home Office and hosted by Local Government Association regional offices. iv Note this refers to the total child population, not the total LAC population v This will be in addition to the 20,000 Syrian refugees the Government has agreed to take by the end of this Parliament. vi Syrian nationals were the fourth-largest group of asylum applicants in the year ending September 2015 (2,204 main applicants). 87% of initial asylum decisions in Syrian cases gave permission to remain in the UK. vii The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and rely on state support, which includes housing and a weekly living allowance, which is coordinated by UKVI. A16