SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL KEY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HR AND TRANSFORMATION AND THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Report title: Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme in Somerset Cabinet Member(s): Cllr A Groskop Cabinet Member for HR and Transformation & Cllr Frances Nicholson Cabinet Member for Children and Families Author Contact Details: Orla Dunn - 01823 357206 or 07795 286935 Date of decision: 21 December 2015 Date of publication of decision: 21 December 2015 Date decision comes into force: 30 December 2015 1. Cabinet Member Decision The Cabinet Member for HR, Health and Transformation and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families approved: 1. Somerset County Council applying to the Minister for Refuge to volunteer to resettle families within Somerset under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme 2. The proposed approach to accepting Syrian Vulnerable People with a view to expanding the numbers of families which can be accepted subject to continued review of the capacity of support services and ensuring that funding covers costs. 3. Delegated authority to the Director of Public Health to take all necessary actions to implement recommendations 1 & 2 to lead to the placement of up to six Syrian families in the first instance. 2. Reason for Decision(s) As set out in the attached report. 3. Reason(s) for Urgency (where applicable) It is proposed that this decision is taken urgently due to the deterioration of conditions in the refugee camps with the onset of winter and the Christmas break which would otherwise delay the decision process. 4. Details of any alternative options considered and rejected As set out in the attached report. 5. Any relevant Personal Interest that the Cabinet Member may have under the Council s Code of Conduct for members None declared. 1
6. Details of any conflict(s) of interest declared by a Cabinet Member consulted about the proposals and any dispensation from Chief Executive None declared. 7. Other background information considered by the Cabinet Member before making this decision As set out in the attached report. 2
Decision Report Key decision 21st December 2015 Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme in Somerset Cabinet Members: Cllr Anna Groskop - Cabinet Member for HR, Health and Transformation & Cllr Frances Nicholson Cabinet Member for Children and Families Division and Local Member(s): All Lead Officer: Trudi Grant, Director of Public Health Author: Dr Orla Dunn, Consultant in Public Health Contact Details: 01823 357206 or 07795 286935 Seen by: Name Date County Solicitor Honor Clarke 10/12/2015 Monitoring Officer Julian Gale 4/12/2015 Corporate Finance Stephen Morton 11/12/2015 Human Resources Chris Squire 7/12/2015 Property / Procurement / ICT Not applicable - Senior Manager Trudi Grant 13/11/2015 Local Member(s) All 4/12/2015-9/12/2015 Cabinet Member Cllr Anna Groskop 1/12/2015 Cllr Frances Nicholson 10/12/2015 Opposition Cllr Ross Henley 18/11/2015 Spokesperson Cllr Justine Clayton 11/12/2015 Relevant Scrutiny Chairman Cllr Leigh Redman 11/12/2015 Cllr Hazel Prior-Sankey 4/12/2015 Forward Plan Reference: Summary: It is proposed that this decision is taken urgently due to the deterioration of conditions in the refugee camps with the onset of winter and the Christmas break which would otherwise delay the decision process. It is proposed that Somerset offer resettlement to an initial six families under the UK Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. A working group comprising of representatives from the county and district councils and with input from other relevant organisations including the Clinical Commissioning Group has assessed this to be a viable initial number to take, which will not put existing services under undue pressure and which will enable us to establish confidence and expertise in our support systems. The local authority costs will be covered by government funding and so be cost neutral. It is proposed that an Evaluation Panel is set-up to review profiles of families offered to Somerset to ensure a match between known needs and capacity of local support systems. A Monitoring Group would also be established to evaluate success of the resettlement scheme within Somerset, monitor the adequacy of funding, impact on services and consider extension of the scheme to further families. 3
That the Cabinet Member for HR, Health and Transformation and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families approve: Recommendations: 1. Somerset County Council applying to the Minister for Refuge to volunteer to resettle families within Somerset under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme 2. The proposed approach to accepting Syrian Vulnerable People with a view to expanding the numbers of families which can be accepted subject to continued review of the capacity of support services and ensuring that funding covers costs. 3. Delegated authority to the Director of Public Health to take all necessary actions to implement recommendations 1 & 2 to lead to the placement of up to six Syrian families in the first instance. The Syrian population is currently experiencing major upheaval and disruption. Due to the high levels of need, the UK Government has expanded its resettlement programme, focussing on those least able to be supported in refugee camps in the region. The programme is funded with the aim that areas taking families should not be financially disadvantaged. The UK Government has pledged to take 20,000 Syrian refugees over a five year period and has sought volunteer councils to offer resettlement. Reasons for Recommendations: An initial scoping exercise has determined that six families can be absorbed and supported well and be financially cost-neutral for the local authorities involved. However there are some pressures on existing services therefore it is considered that some specialist and or high level health and social work / care needs are not going to be able to be met. An Evaluation Panel, which draws together expertise on key services will be able to provide advice on these issues to ensure known needs of families accepted can be met and services prepared in advance of arrival. This panel would include representation from county council, district councils, and CCG at a minimum. Initial discussions have highlighted Mendip, Taunton Deane and South Somerset as the districts most likely to be best placed to locate families. However, until the profiles of families and therefore their likely school, accommodation and other wrap around support requirements are known, placement locations cannot be decided. All districts continue to be actively involved in discussions and planning. The core of a Somerset support package would be provided by the Troubled Families Scheme which would be an initial average of three hours per week, supported with interpreters, tapering as families become more independent and variable as families 4
require. Use of the Troubled Families type scheme is an approach that is being used successfully in other areas of the country. This would be augmented with meet and greet from the arrival airport, a welcome pack, induction briefings, more interpreter services, help with registration with organisations, language classes, orientation to the local area and facilitation of links with local community and voluntary organisations. In coming to a recommendation on the nature of wrap around support which would be necessary to support Syrian Vulnerable Persons to settle in Somerset, the UK Government produced guidance on the level and nature of support which is likely to be required for Syrian Vulnerable Persons (SVP) see background document Statement of Requirements has been followed. Discussions have also been had with colleagues in areas with more experience of settling asylum seekers and refugees. A working group with representation from county and district council representatives has reviewed the type and costings of support proposed to be provided. Taking an initial six families leaves open the option for Somerset to volunteer to resettle more families in the future should capability and capacity permit. There is a strong desire amongst organisations involved in supporting refugees to extend the Somerset scheme, subject to capacity within services and funding covering costs. It is recommended that a group monitor the adequacy of funding, impact on services, evaluate success of the resettlement scheme within Somerset and consider extension of the scheme to further families. It is proposed that project management would continue to be led through Public Health given expertise across domains influencing health and wellbeing. Links to Priorities and Impact on Service Plans: The proposal supports the Somerset County Plan vision that: Somerset is a place where people from all backgrounds have an equal opportunity to learn, work and enjoy themselves All Cabinet Members have been consulted and have indicated general support for the proposal. Consultations undertaken: Cllr William Wallace commented that it is commendable the work that the team at Somerset County Council and the Districts have undertaken to help provide care to these very needy families. I would support our efforts to help as much as we can in these difficult times. Cllr Henley, opposition spokesman for HR, health and transformation has been consulted on the proposals and is supportive. Cllr Clayton, opposition spokesman for children and families has 5
been consulted on the proposals and is supportive. Representatives from all District Councils have been consulted and actively involved in initial discussions. On behalf of the three district council areas looking to resettle refugees in this first wave we have the following comments: Cllr Jane Warmington, the TDBC portfolio-holder for Community Leadership has delegated decision making powers for her Council to accept refugees. She supports the findings of this report and has committed TDBC to accept the initial two refugee families in the Taunton Deane area and to do further work to reach agreement on a figure over the next 5 years. For Mendip District Council, Cllr Philip Ham, Portfolio Holder has delegated authority to act as he sees fit on this matter. Mendip are keen to accept two refugee families as a first step to taking others. They would look initially to place families in Frome as not only is there is an active community there but because BANES are taking four families shortly and there is also the Muslim community around Trowbridge. For South Somerset, Cllr Ric Pallister and Steve Joel (Assistant Director Health and Well-Being) have the delegated authority to support the proposals. SSDC is supportive and committed to playing its part within the Somerset Assessment and Coordination Group, and in finding appropriate housing solutions to support refugees to resettle. Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group has indicated that it is supportive of taking Syrian Refugees into Somerset as part of the national response. An initial cohort of six families is not excessive and the CCG would support similar future cohorts being taken as well. Consideration will need to be given to the benefits of clustering families together which will enhance support and longer term benefits of integration which may be better achieved with smaller clusters. The level of language skills will be an important factor and access to interpretation may be important for some individuals. The CCG supports the approach of basing families in urban areas because of the transport difficulties in rural areas particularly if they do not access to a private car. The health needs of individual families will need to be carefully assessed and the likelihood of mental health services being required was acknowledged by the COG. Refugees who are health workers would be welcome due to the skills shortage in a number of areas. The Public Health team has led discussions with the county council teams, district council housing and the local CCG to determine the capability and capacity of the local systems to provide likely support required. The use of and level of financial funding required for Syrian families to be supported through the 6
Troubled Families scheme has been agreed and will enable an additional Family Support Worker to be employed. Julian Wooster, Director of Children s Services has commented that he is agreeable to the proposed support arrangements subject to the mitigations in the report. If numbers were to be increased it would be necessary to review the support arrangements for any further families. The discussions established that due to existing pressures and available services, it is considered that some specialist and or high level health and social work / care needs are not going to be able to be met within the timeframe of the resettlement process even with additional funding. We also noted varying pressure on school places around the county. As a result of these assessments of system capacity we have proposed an evaluation panel, composed of people with specialist knowledge, which can advise on these issues, ensure we can meet known needs of families and also facilitate advanced service planning. We would not aim to settle families in locations without adequate suitable school places or service capacity available. Although indicative locations have been considered it is not possible to predict exact location of families until actual profiles are seen and evaluated. A number of groups have publically pledged material and social support for resettlement of Syrians in Somerset. We have also received many individual offers of support from Somerset residents. Once a formal decision is made to resettle refugees we intend to engage more fully with the public support, schools, adult education providers, police, cultural, voluntary and community groups including faith groups. If the proposal is accepted we intend to work alongside the community and voluntary sector in this endeavour. The voluntary sector and local communities are vital to this but initially it is the statutory authorities who need to arrange housing, health, education, benefit income, individual family support and interpreters. The UK Government has outlined finances to support resettlement of Syrian vulnerable persons in the first twelve months, as shown in Table 1. More detail on this funding is available in the background document Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement (SVPR) Project Funding Proposal. Financial Implications: The scheme aims to fully fund all local authority, education, welfare, social care and health care costs. The aim is for costs within a category to be pooled across families so in due course any surplus could be used to support families with more complex needs. Costs would not need to be pooled across budget areas so the local authority allowance would not need to subsidise costs in any other category. This allows 520 for social care and 8000 per person for other local authority costs. Funding will continue for years 2-5 of the scheme with 5,000 per person in 7
year two tapering to 1,000 per person in year five. Funding for six families would be in the region of 200-300k. Table 1. Unit costs for first twelve months for Syria VPR scheme v.2.0 (Home Office, 2015). Table 2 shows financial modelling suggesting that for a family without exceptional needs, the funding envelope would be sufficient to include a contingency to be pooled for families with more complex or expensive needs. Proportionately, couples would be more expensive than families with children as the marginal cost of additional household members reduces. Figures are indicative and it is likely that some costs could be reduced by working with community and voluntary sector. These costs have also been scrutinised across local and district authority areas for reasonableness as far as can be determined in the absence of profiles of actual families. We have also taken advice of other councils in the South West with more experience of supporting asylum seekers and refugees. Table 2. Summary local authority budget areas 12 months Feedback from finance contact It will be necessary to monitor any costs incurred and that representation would be made as appropriate through standard governance arrangements should costs exceed that allocated. 8
Legal Implications: HR Implications: There is not a statutory duty to offer accommodation to Syrian families, however, in offering to do so, the Local Authority will be exercising a public function and will therefore be subject to s149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It will be necessary to ensure that the application process does not directly or indirectly discriminate families due to protected characteristics. No HR implications are expected as a consequence of these proposals. Effect on Service Although all families for resettlement will have initial assessments completed by the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and IOM (International Organization for Migration), it is possible that some needs will not become apparent until the family is in the UK. If these needs could not be met then there would be implications for the health and wellbeing of the families. We will consult with areas with experience in settling asylum seekers and early experience with Syrian refugees. To an extent this risk can be limited by taking an initial low number of families. There is a minimal risk to ability to deliver services taking into account the additional needs of families supported. This has been mitigated by inclusion of relevant service leads to ensure that to the extent needs are captured on the application forms, families accepted can be supported well and also some degree of forward planning can be undertaken. Risk Implications: Families will also be located in geographical areas with service capacity in the areas they are likely to need. Financial backfill would be provided to the Troubled Families Scheme to ensure there is no impact on existing ability to deliver to Somerset families. All families will have the right to reunion i.e. dependants are entitled to join them. This poses a financial risk to the council and possibly other organisations involved in providing services. Dependants may have needs and a right to draw on local authority provided services. Potential dependants should be noted on the UNHCR application form. To an extent this risk can be limited by taking an initial low number of families. Likelihood Slight 2 Impact Minor 2 Risk Score LOW 4 Embarrassment/ Reputation There is a reputational risk if the council does not volunteer to resettle refugees given many of our near neighbours in the South West are accepting refugees. There are some public 9
groups in Somerset who are keen for Somerset to accept refugees in the near future and would be likely to engage in more vociferous lobbying if a positive decision is not forthcoming. There is also a risk to the reputation of the council if refugees are not adequately supported which could reach a national level of attention. This has been mitigated by inclusion of relevant service leads to ensure that, to the extent needs are captured on the application forms, families accepted can be supported well and also some degree of forward planning can be undertaken. We are also liaising and learning from other areas with more experience in the area, good practice guides and will be evaluating progress locally with feedback from the families. Likelihood Very Unlikely 1 Impact Significant 3 Risk Score LOW 3 Failure to provide statutory duties/legal obligations The UK Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme has been set up by the Home Office. The Somerset process will follow the guidance in the Home Office fact sheet on the scheme (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/472020/syrian_resettlement_fact_sheet_gov_u k.pdf). Once full details of the case and medical history are sent to the local authority an Evaluation Panel will assess level of need, including whether and where suitable accommodation and care are available locally. The Evaluation Panel will then provide details of estimated costs to the Home Office who will then decide whether to place the family. Reasons for limiting applications and or rejection of applications would be around capacity of services or suitable accommodation. The aim would be to identify the best locations in Somerset to meet the assessed needs of families including schools, housing and health. Financial costs would not be a reason for rejection given the ability to apply for additional funding. It is noted that restricting resettlement where reasons relate to protected characteristics poses a risk of discrimination under Art14 of the Human Rights Act Prohibition of Discrimination which covers disability and s15 of the Equalities Act 2010 discrimination arising from disability. To mitigate this risk the council has very carefully considered the equality implications of such actions, whether they could be considered proportionate and how to operate within the national application and evaluation process. Clear guidelines would be set up for the Evaluation Panel to operate within and to document the process. Further guidance on this issue has also been sought from the Home Office. Likelihood Very Unlikely 1 Impact Significant 3 Risk Score LOW 3 10
Financial Costs exceed the modelling at a family level would be a financial risk for the council. The government is expecting a degree of cross-subsidy within local authority funding areas for families and has given an assurance that any costs above this level can be claimed on a case by case basis. This is a similar system to that used to support costs of asylum seekers. The financial risks to the council are limited by the initial scoping exercise which has modelled a support programme which fits within the funding available, the a small number of families taken in each cohort, the monitoring of costs prior to extension of the scheme and the ability to apply for additional funding to the Home Office if required. Likelihood Slight 2 Impact Significant 3 Risk Score LOW 6 Feedback on overall Business Risk The risks identified at present seem appropriate. A more in depth risk assessment should be taken by Public Health once the decision is agreed Whilst there have been offers of support from Somerset groups and residents, there have also been some fears raised in the local media that any resettled Syrians may have access to services ahead of existing residents. We recognise that all residents will need to be treated in an equitable manner. Other Implications (including due regard implications): People settled under the SVPS will be housed using private rental stock thus not impacting on residents waiting for council housing. Although all GPs in Somerset are currently accepting new patients we would not be enabling families to register with practices which would have a closed list for the wider community. There are also dentists accepting NHS patients in all areas of Somerset. Likewise, the Syrians will not receive any priority on waiting lists for hospital treatment above a Somerset resident with the same health profile. There are some schools in Somerset which are over-subscribed and where residents may have previously been turned down for places. The school admissions team will of course give Syrian families the same consideration as local children in terms of school places. We would not aim to settle families in locations without adequate suitable school places available. Refugees will go through a number of enhanced national level security checks to ensure that there is no known risk to community safety. The police are involved in national systems for on-going support and monitoring of those resettled. 11
Scrutiny comments / recommendation (if any): Cllr Prior-Sankey has expressed her support for the proposal. Cllr Redman is generally supportive of the proposal. 12
1. Background 1.1. Since September 2015, Somerset County Council, representing the county and district councils has been involved in regional discussions on how best to implement this scheme across the South West. We are aware of publically declared plans of near neighbours in Plymouth, Wiltshire and BANES as well as more well developed informal discussions in other authorities in the South West. 1.2. Following discussion at SLT on 8/12/2015 it was recommended that this issue be taken as a key decision due to the significant level of interest. 2. Options considered and reasons for rejecting them 2.1. At present this is a voluntary national scheme so Somerset has the option not to volunteer to resettle any Syrian Vulnerable Persons. This course of action would be likely to have reputational costs. 2.2. Somerset can volunteer to resettle more than six families. However, an initial scoping exercise has determined that six families can be absorbed and supported well. This leaves open the option to volunteer to resettle more families in the future should capability and capacity permit. 2.3. Exceeding this number initially increases the risk that the needs of the families may not be adequately met. Somerset is not a current asylum dispersal area and as such, many organisations which would support refugees have no presence in our county and we lack depth of specialist capacity in some service areas. We are also a county with few pre-existing culturally similar community support networks. We need to build our capabilities to provide appropriate support at a community and organisational level. We will be actively working on this, learning from other areas in the South West with more experience of working with refugees, our own experiences and feedback from those in the initial cohort of those resettled. 3. Background Papers 3.1. Further background on the Syrian situation and resettlement programme and guidance for local authorities and partners is available in a Home Office fact sheet https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4 72020/Syrian_Resettlement_Fact_Sheet_gov_uk.pdf The Syrian population is predominantly Arabic speaking with a Syrian / Lebanese dialect. About 85% of the population are Muslim. There are some other religious groups present, predominantly orthodox Christians and due to persecution these groups may be over represented in the population put forward for resettlement. 3.2. People accepted under the SVP resettlement scheme will be assessed in their refugee camp by UNHCR. This would include a fairly extensive health check from 13
IOM (International Organization for Migration). Further security checks will take place, including biometric screening, prior to families being put forward for resettlement. Profiles will then be circulated amongst councils volunteering to resettle. The aim is for a maximum turnaround of 42 days between acceptance of application and arrival in the UK. 3.3. Within the UK, Syrian Vulnerable People accepted under the scheme would receive Humanitarian Protection. This status entitles them to stay for an initial five years and claim UK benefits. This status also facilitates their future return to Syria should they wish. Under a special dispensation agreed nationally people would be eligible for benefits from day of arrival rather than the usual two month wait. 3.4. Further references: Home Office. (2015) Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme Statement of Requirements. Home Office. (August 2015). Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement (SVPR) Project Funding Proposal. 14
Impact Assessment Form and Action Table 2015 (Expand the boxes as appropriate, please see guidance (www.somerset.gov.uk/impactassessment) to assist with completion) "I shall try to explain what "due regard" means and how the courts interpret it. The courts have made it clear that having due regard is more than having a cursory glance at a document before arriving at a preconceived conclusion. Due regard requires public authorities, in formulating a policy, to give equality considerations the weight which is proportionate in the circumstances, given the potential impact of the policy on equality. It is not a question of box-ticking; it requires the equality impact to be considered rigorously and with an open mind." Baroness Thornton, March 2010 Why are you completing the Impact Assessment? MTFP or Service What are you completing the Impact Assessment on (which policy, service, MTFP reference, cluster etc)? Section 1 Description of what is being impact assessed Resettlement in Somerset of Syrian Vulnerable Persons Impact of six families on accessibility of services for local residents in Somerset with possibilities of further extension in numbers accepted for resettlement subject to capacity of services and costs remaining within funding. The intensive support package would be provided for the first 12 months from arrival with a much lighter programme envisaged after that point. People accepted under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Scheme would have humanitarian protection giving them the right to live in the UK for a period of up to five years. Section 2A People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table) People who could be affected include other Somerset residents who use council services and those who are part of the UK Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. Section 2B People who are delivering the policy or service The core of a Somerset support package would be provided by the Troubled Families Scheme. This scheme provides support to families with two or more vulnerability factors relating to; crime and antisocial behaviour; school attendance; children who need help; financial exclusion, unemployment and worklessness; domestic violence and abuse or health problems. The Family Support Workers are used to providing intensive support to families to turn around difficult situations with the aim of resolving the vulnerability factors and promoting independence. These skills make them ideal to provide the support to independence that the Syrian Vulnerable People will need. Support in other areas such as language will be added as required. The District Council s Housing teams would co-ordinate provision of accommodation and on-going management. Additional project management would be provided from Public Health. Subject to appropriate checks, some support may be delivered by volunteers. 15
Section 3 Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where appropriate) Gateway Protection Programme Good Practice Guide. (2008) This document was written with input from Refugee Action and the Refugee Council UK about the experiences of areas supporting refugees through the Gateway Programme. It captures some of the complexities of supporting refugees including guidance on how to support and equip the local community to welcome refugees. It also provides guidance on measures of integration and overall success of any such programmes which can provide guidance for Somerset on monitoring progress. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0002/5053/ Gateway_good_practice_guide_sept_2008.pdf Horton Housing Best Practice Guide to the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme. (2015). This document provides feedback from Horton Housing on their experiences with some of the earliest Syrian refugees in Bradford. Offers of support have been received from individual residents, voluntary, faith and community groups. Data on the health and wellbeing needs of Syrian families applying for resettlement is based on the IOM application form which covers general health, disabilities, vaccination history, long standing conditions, equipment and medication / treatments required. Experience from other areas suggests there is a variable level of completion. It can be predicted that due to the breakdown in health services that immunisation, optical and dental issues will exist. Mental health needs are likely to be more prevalent. Any pregnant women are likely to have not had extensive ante-natal care. Section 4 Conclusions drawn about the equalities impact of the proposed change or new service/policy (Please use prompt sheet in the guidance for help with what to consider): Community Safety: The programme will need to pay heed to some of the issues around integration. Best practice guides suggest that integration is facilitated if families are placed in predominantly Muslim communities (Horton, 2015). Although Somerset has no areas which are predominantly Muslim, initial scoping plans of capacity have taken into account knowledge of religious facilities, culturally similar groups and level of community support. Culturally similar groups have provided offers of support and help with integration. We will work with the Safer Somerset Community Partnership to further develop plans for integration. For existing communities the programme will need to take into account community anxiety around the influx of new residents. We need to ensure that communications with local communities are comprehensive so that local people understand the facts about this scheme, and numbers (in a positive way). District councils will be able to lead on this type of activity in conjunction with the Safer Somerset Partnership and its sub groups that also consider intelligence about local community tensions that may help. We have also noted recommendations within good practice guides on preparing the local community for the arrival of Syrian Vulnerable People and the need for links to be made with community policing to intervene early and address issues which may arise. The briefing process will cover how families would report any hate crimes or victimisation they experience. There is provision within the support package for interpreters to support this process should it 16
be required. The screening process is designed to ensure that there is no security risk to the UK from those resettled. This is also subject to nationally led on-going monitoring processes. Within schools we have local expertise on settling in children who have suffered trauma and without English as a first language. The scheme would work with them to develop a plan to enhance understanding of teachers and children at schools receiving Syrian pupils to the Syrian situation. An initial interpreter supported meeting between schools and parents would enable a fuller understanding of the child s needs to be provided and support plans to be discussed. To meet the national scheme requirements, Disclosure and Barring Service checks will need to be undertaken on any potential staff member, sub-contractor or volunteer. Any who are likely to have unsupervised access to children under the age of 18 have been instructed in accordance with National Child Protection Guidelines and Area Child Protection Committee guidance and procedures. Any providing immigration advice should be known to the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) in accordance with the regulatory scheme specified under Part 5 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999. Staff must not provide immigration advice or immigration services unless they are qualified or exempt as determined and certified by OISC. On request the Home Office may request with details of all staff (and volunteers and sub-contractor agents) delivering the service in this schedule including job descriptions and CVs. To support staff and volunteers, liaison has been undertaken with cultural experts and a series of briefings would be planned including issues of appropriate boundaries. It has also been considered when it may be necessary to provide professional interpreters and situations when a volunteer interpreter may be acceptable. To an extent this may vary dependent on the preferences of the families. Differences in cultural norms may pose some problems. As noted in the Gateway Good Practice Guide Domestic violence, patriarchy, and the physical punishment of children are accepted practices in some cultures. It is clear that the briefing and induction process would need to challenge any practices that clients may feel are normal, but are illegal or unacceptable in the UK. Links have been established with cultural experts on Syria who will be able to advise on likely extent of these issues and respectful but clear discussion of these differences. Services would also be required to monitor any issues which arise over time and ensure any support is made available. This challenge has arisen in several other programmes and whilst remaining alert to the implications of this, there appear constructive ways to approach and resolve these issues. Equality Perceived issues may arise in relation to access to housing, school places, primary care registration including at GPs or dentists, and secondary care waiting lists. These would be addressed through community communications. Persons settled under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons scheme would be housed in private rented sector housing so not impact on housing waiting lists. They would also be subject to the same consideration as local residents for places at schools, GP and Dentist lists and waiting lists for secondary care. Health and Safety No impacts on health and safety have been identified at this time. 17
Health and Wellbeing (Cabinet Member Key Decision 21 December 2015) A very positive impact on health of the refugees can be anticipated with their removal from refugee camp conditions. However some negative impacts may also be anticipated due to dislocation from support systems which may have been built up and also the impact of moving to a new culture and country. It is noted in good practice guides that many refugees have come from fairly affluent backgrounds in Syria and thus there will be a discrepancy between the lifestyle that was enjoyed prior to disruption and that which would be available under the support for resettled families. It is recommended that expectations are explicitly managed in this area and this would be incorporated into the induction programme and on-going support. The health needs of refugees would have an impact on the services that they access but at the number of families proposed to be accepted no meaningful impact would be anticipated at a population level. Privacy Assessing and monitoring people to be accepted under the SVP resettlement scheme will involve the processing of their personal information. This includes sensitive personal data such as that relating to their health, ethnicity and religion. It also includes any information gleaned from police security checks. Once in the UK, this information must be protected in a way which gives due respect to the privacy rights of the individual refugees concerned. Any processing of their personal data (including collection, sharing and use of their information) must comply with the principles and provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act. Any investigations, monitoring, or surveillance of such individuals in the UK, for the purposes of security or law enforcement, must also comply with the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000). Sustainability No impacts on sustainability have been identified at this time. Section 5 After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and positive steps taken. The assessment suggests few impacts at a population level whilst the opportunity to impact positively on families supported is huge. On this basis it is recommended that Somerset County Council in conjunction with partners in other organisations volunteer to resettle Syrian Vulnerable Persons. Good practice guides are referenced in the evidence section. We have established links with other nearby councils who are also taking Syrian Vulnerable People and which are ahead in the timeline and so we can learn from their experiences and share resources. 18
Identified issue drawn from your conclusions Age: No issues identified. Disability: People with disabilities may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR if less able to have needs met in a refugee camp environment. Gender Reassignment: Anyone with gender reassignment may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR due to likely levels of persecution. Marriage and Civil Partnership: People in an abusive domestic situation may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR. Pregnancy and Maternity: Pregnant women may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR if less able to have needs met in a refugee camp environment. Actions needed can you mitigate the impacts? If you can how will you mitigate the impacts? A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. This would particularly involve links with the Safer Somerset Community Partnership and Domestic Abuse Services A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. Who is responsible for the actions? When will the action be completed? Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. How will it be monitored? What is the expected outcome from the action? Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided. Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided. Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided. Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided.
Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers): Given characteristics of the background population people offered resettlement are likely to be Syrian. Religion and Belief: Given characteristics of the background population, people offered resettlement are likely to be Muslim although there are also Christian groups. Sex: Women may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR if less able to have needs met in a refugee camp environment. Links have been made with cultural experts who can advise on likely needs and how best to facilitate cultural integration. This will need to feed into induction and on-going support plans. Links will also be made with the Safer Somerset Community Partnership and Police. Links have been made with cultural experts who can advise on likely needs and how best to facilitate cultural integration. This will need to feed into settlement location plans, induction and on-going support plans. Links will also be made with the Safer Somerset Community Partnership and Police. A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. Monitoring Group. On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Monitoring Group. On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Development of a supportive service which is attentive to cultural needs and facilitates integration with the local community as well as links to culturally similar groups and organisations. Awareness of any community tensions. Prevention and early intervention where issues arise Development of a supportive service which is attentive to cultural needs and facilitates integration with the local community as well as links to culturally similar groups and organisations. Awareness of any community tensions. Prevention and early intervention where issues arise Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided.
Sexual Orientation: Anyone with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual may be more likely to be put forward for resettlement by the UNHCR due to likely levels of persecution. A panel would evaluate the forms to predict pressure on services and ensure appropriate planning is in place. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, Military Status etc): Due to lack of access to private transport, settlement is likely to be in urban areas with a good local infrastructure. Families will be on a low income and have other challenges adapting to life in Somerset. Consideration of appropriate locations for resettlement. Families would be supported to integrate, link to community resources, take up English language courses if necessary and work opportunities if possible. Evaluation Panel On-going whilst new families are considered for resettlement. Troubled Families Scheme On-going for first 12 months of resettlement Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided. Monitoring Group Needs are accommodated within the support package provided. Monitoring Group Families are supported through changes in living conditions. Families become financially independent as quickly as possible. Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to review the Impact Assessment The Impact Assessment would be reviewed by the Monitoring Group and prior to any and each extension of cohorts planned to be supported. Completed by: Dr Orla Dunn Date 10/12/2015 Signed off by: Dr Orla Dunn Date 10/12/2015 Compliance sign off Date December 2015 To be reviewed by: (officer name) Dr Orla Dunn Review date: 1/4/2016 Version 1.1 Date December 2015
Somerset County Council Notice of key decision The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 Regulation 10 In accordance with the Council s Access to Information Procedure, as set out in the Council s Constitution, notice is hereby given that the following Key Decision, which has not been included in a published version of the Cabinet Forward Plan for the required 28 clear days, is to be considered by the Cabinet Member for HR and Transformation and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families on 21 December 2015: Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme in Somerset Contact Officer: Orla Dunn Tel: 01823 357206 or 07795 286935 Reasons It is proposed to take a key decision on this matter on the date shown above. It would be impracticable to defer the decision until it has been included in a published version of the Forward Plan for the required 28 clear days. Circulation: Leader of the Council Cabinet Members Chairman of Scrutiny Committee All County Council members Public notice board at County Hall, Taunton 11 December 2015 Julian Gale Monitoring Officer For questions about this notice please contact Scott Wooldridge, Service Manager, Community Governance, County Hall, Taunton, TA1 4DY. Tel : 01823 356748