Agenda item

(Item 6 – report by Mr Paul Carter, Leader of the County Council and Mr Andrew Ireland, Corporate Director of Families and Social Care)

Cabinet considered a report of the of the above named Member and officer detailing the history and current position of the financial costs incurred by the County Council when supporting those young people in the County who had been declared to be ‘Appeals Rights Exhausted’ (ARE) by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and therefore had no right to claim financial or housing benefits, but who had yet to be deported.

The Leader of the County Council introduced the item for consideration and in particular he made the following observations and statements:

(i)        That Kent County Council had pursued ongoing and lengthy negotiations with various Home office Ministers and more recently with Mark Harper MP, Minister of State for Immigration in order to highlight, and seek a solution to, the costs incurred by Kent County Council in supporting ARE young people who had not yet been deported over the last three years.

(ii)       That the cost of supporting these young people, who numbered between 120 and 130 should not fall to the citizens of Kent but should be funded by the Treasury.

(iii)      There had for some time been conflict between the advice received from the Home Office on the matter of support for these young people and the requirements of the Children’s Act to support children or young adults who were once looked after children, up to in some cases the age of 24.  In addition the Leader referred to the moral issues which would influence any debate of this kind.  When questioned about the anomalies between the advice from the Home Office and the requirements of the Children’s Act the Minister was not able to provide a definitive answer which could direct the Kent County Council’s actions. 

(iv)      Numbers of ARE young people, being supported by the County Council remained consistent at just over 100.  This was owing to the fact that once a young person classed as ARE reached 24 and had not been deported by UKBA they would cease to be registered as an unaccompanied asylum seeker and become an unsupported adult.  At approximately the same time they would have been replaced on the list of ARE young people by and individual in care reaching the age of 18 and leaving care.  The financial burden to Kent county Council was running at £2 million a year and had been for the last 2 years and 9 months.  This created an outstanding balance of £5-6 million which Kent County Council believed was owed to it by the Government.

(v)       The Home office had suggested that Human Rights tests be applied to the young people in question and this had been carried out.  The results showed that 70% of the young people in question would have their human rights infringed should the County Council withdraw all financial support.  A further request to the government that funding be provided for only those people identified in this category was not received positively and no offer of funding was forthcoming.

(vi)      Legal advice suggested that a resolution between the Home Office advice and the Children’s Act would be settled most effectively by a court ruling and this would be pursued further.

Mr Wild, Corporate Director of Governance and Law spoke to the item and further explained the points made by the Leader.  He reported to Cabinet the following:

·                That neither the Government nor the Courts had formed a sufficiently strong view on the action which the County Council should take.  Without financial support from central government the council may be expected to provide up to £2m annually of unbudgeted funding, but taking the Home Office advice and ceasing support would carry significant consequences.

·                These consequences were primarily moral issues regarding the deliberate making destitute of individuals, particularly those whom the Council once had a responsibility for as corporate parents but also the possible financial and resource issues related to the potential for an increase in crime.  These issues and the responsibilities, including post care responsibilities, of the role of corporate parent effectively made the option of ceasing support impossible.  To consider these responsibilities in relation to the worst outcome of ceasing support, were a tragedy such as the death of a young person to occur owing to the Council’s failure to support them the council or individuals within it could face corporate manslaughter charges.

·                He advised that the option to pursue the matter via legal channels at the earliest opportunity was the preferred option to provide a viable and fair solution.  It would involve a challenge via judicial review against the Home Office for failing to perform their responsibilities for ARE young people, namely not deporting them or supporting their extended stay.  This is the void which the council would ask the court to address.  If the Home office did not deport or support the individuals in question then the court would be asked to confirm the rights of the individuals and the responsibilities of the County Council in the matter.  Waiting for the matter to be resolved was becoming unrealistic and therefore it was recommended that the council take the initiative and pursue the matter.    

·                Mr Carter confirmed that this way forward was necessary and prudent and that an answer must be sought in order that the burden of financial responsibility was removed from the residents of Kent. He suggested that this pathway be included within the actions to be taken under recommendation one of the report should it be agreed by Cabinet.

·                He reminded Cabinet that alongside these ARE young people the County supports between 900 and 1000 unaccompanied minors.  The grant from government has not been inflation linked when it was agreed and therefore would also require renegotiation in the future as costs rise in order to ensure that no costs fall directly to Council tax payers in Kent.  Currently it could take almost three years for the Home office to decide the asylum applications of the children and this was not, he believed, acceptable.

Mrs Jenny Whittle, Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services supported the recommendation of the Corporate Director of Governance and Law and contained within the recommendations of the report to pursue a legal ruling on the matter of responsibility.

She further referred to the comment made previously by the Leader regarding the fact that ARE young people disappear from the list at the age of 24 if they had not been deported.  She described the acceptance of the Home Office when presented with these facts and regarded it with concern.

Human Rights funding supported young people for 13 weeks in order that there was sufficient time for deportation to be carried out but this was not proving to be sufficient for the necessary action to be taken.  UKBA must accept that once an asylum claim had been decided in the negative, those people must be deported more speedily.

The Leader asked Mairead MacNeil, Director for Specialist Children’s Services, substituting for the Corporate Director of Families and Social Care, to confirm that when, aged 24 these young people were no longer considered to be ARE unaccompanied minors and recorded in this way that they would become destitute and ‘disappear’ from the asylum radar.  Ms MacNeil confirmed that this was correct and added that often support ceased or tapered away from the age of 21.  She reiterated the difficulties surrounding the status of immigrants particularly those that arrived in England as unaccompanied children but that where it had been deemed safe to deport individuals back to their country of origin this should then be conducted in a timely fashion.

It was RESOLVED: