Agenda item
Update on European Union Settlement Scheme for Looked After Children and Care Leavers
To receive a briefing in relation to the activities undertaken to assist Looked After Children and Care Leavers with their applications to obtain European Union Settled Status (EUSS).
Minutes:
Onder Beter (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report, which brought the Committees’ attention to activities undertaken to assist looked after children and care leavers with their applications to obtain European Union Settled Status (EUSS) and gave the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise and hold the Council to account regarding their responsibility to support those applications as part of post-Brexit requirements. He highlighted section 2 of the report which provided the national context and reason for the report, and section 3 of the report which detailed the activity of the Council and provided data and reassurance to the Committee around management grip and strategic scrutiny at director level.
In response to queries over what would happen to a person’s settled status if they missed the application deadline, the Committee were informed that this had been discussed in a meeting with the Home Office who it was felt had been reticent about what would happen. All authorities were now pushing for all applications to be made by the deadline of 30th June 2021 and there was uncertainty about what the Home Office intention was in relation to those young people and families who may not have made their applications at that point. Onder Beter confirmed that the Council would continue to support those people and had already achieved huge successes with plans for all children and young people, but he highlighted that the issue was very dynamic and new children come into care every week. Very recently the Council had recruited a part time business support officer to ensure there was a single point of contact with capacity to assist children and families which the department were very grateful for.
In relation to how young people were being supported to obtain documents, Onder Beter advised that the Home Office had been supportive and proactive in order to get the matter sorted by the deadline. For example, the Home Office had been more receptive to supporting letters from local authorities as opposed to 2019 when the scheme first started. Many embassies and consulates had improved their support for citizens also. Regarding difficulties obtaining identification documentation, for example due to parents not co-operating, the Committee queried how the Council were responding to the challenge. Onder Beter advised that in those instances the Council would approach the relevant embassy or consulate and make a representation on behalf of the children, however for certain countries, for example Poland, consent was required from both parents for any identification documents to be acquired by the consulate. The Home Office had advised that in those circumstances a paper based application should be made and the Council should try its best to obtain anything that would prove the identity of the child in question. He added that they had been reassured by the Home Office that this circumstance in itself would not prevent or be an obstacle to status being granted, but that they needed to ensure everyone was doing their best to comply with the legislation.
In relation to those who had not made an application, Onder Beter advised that so far the Council had been successful in supporting most care leavers with their applications, but there were 2 young people who did not want any support from the Council. The service were trying to engage with them and encourage them to make applications. The young people had been made aware many times of the consequences and implications of not making an application, but the Council were not able to find out whether or not they had made an application as they had made it clear to the Home Office they did not wish for their information to be shared. As a result the Council would need to report them as young people who may not have made their applications. Nigel Chapman (Operational Director Integration and Improved Outcomes, Brent Council) added that the Council’s responsibility to the care leavers was in their pathway plans, setting out exactly what they were doing, and why, and showing that the Council had gone the extra mile and while it would be the young person’s choice the Council needed to put the implications of their decision in front of them regarding how it would affect them long term.
Highlighting section 3.2 of the report, the Committee were pleased to see 10 cases had been positively resolved but queried how long the remaining 4 would wait for their status. The Committee were informed there was no time frame given for a response once a decision had been made but there was confidence these would be resolved prior to the deadline. Those were the children that had recently come into care. The Committee were reminded that if a child had come into care 2 days ago and did not have their EU settled status resolved the Council were required to work with that child to make an application and that could take time, and therefore the situation could become quite complex. He advised that the Council had been given a specific number of a Home Office professional they could contact if there was concern on delays of status.
RESOLVED:
i) To note the report.
Supporting documents: