To receive a verbal update from the Cabinet Members for Specialist Children’s Services and Adult Social Care and Public Health, the Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and the Director of Public Health.
Minutes:
1. Mr P J Oakford, Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services, gave a verbal update on the following issues:
Placement of children in care in Kent by other local authorities – Mr Oakford had written to the Children’s Commissioner to highlight once again the high number of vulnerable young people placed in Kent by other local authorities and the potential impact of this upon their welfare and safety. The letter sought the Commissioner’s support in reviewing and addressing the number of placements made at a distance by other local authorities.
Children In Care Council ‘Take Over’ Challenge – for one day in November, young people from Our Children and Young People’s Council would take over the running of the County Council. This would include covering the issues which a Cabinet Member would deal with in a day, and questioning officers on issues relevant to children in care and care leavers.
Virtual School Kent Awards Day, 10 September – this would recognise and celebrate the achievements of young people, and all Members would be invited to attend.
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) – there was plenty to report but unfortunately it was largely disappointing news. Although the rate of monthly arrivals was still much less than at last summer, there were currently 1,400 UASC in Kent and the number was still increasing. Mr Oakford would write to the new Immigration Minister, Robert Goodwill, and was seeking a meeting at the earliest opportunity to tackle the issue robustly and to press again for a mandatory programme of dispersal of UASC around the country. The Local Government Association, however, did not support such an arrangement, although Kent MPs had been supportive.
2. Mr A Ireland, Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing, then gave a verbal update on the following issues:
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) – Mr Ireland added that the limited dispersal arrangements currently in place meant that UASC would remain in Kent for longer. Although new arrivals were being dealt with as they arrived, a core of longstanding cases was not being addressed, and the longer a young person stayed in the county, the more settled they became - for example, in education - and the harder they would be to move on. Once they reached 18, Kent would be obliged to take on responsibility for them as care leavers, and the costs of this were not fully covered by Home Office funding. To be effective, a dispersal scheme would need to be activated quickly; the longer it took to establish a mandatory scheme, the more the delay would compound the UASC problem for Kent. The reasons for UASC coming to the UK could be summarised in the following categories:
· Those who had family in the UK, who would not be part of a dispersal scheme as they would be taken directly to the area where their family lived;
· Those who had come on humanitarian grounds, who would need to be placed;
· Those who had come from refugee camps in the Middle East, who would need to be placed.
Identifying and assessing the needs of each group presented a complicated scenario to be worked through, and this was why other local authorities were reluctant to commit to taking them. It was important to be clear of the status of every UASC, and the only legislation under which the County Council could deal with them was the Children’s Act 1989, which covered the arrangements for them coming into care. The County Council had responsibility only for the young people arriving, but other activity around them and their arrival had an impact on their situation and on the establishment of a dispersal scheme. Mr Oakford’s letter to the Immigration Minister would include this point. It was hoped that the current disruption at Calais would soon be over and would not become a catalyst for more UASC coming into Kent.
3. In response to questions, Mr Ireland and Mr Oakford explained the following:
a) UASC were currently coming mainly from Afghanistan, Syria and Eritrea, and there were also currently significant numbers coming from Egypt;
b) as UASC were gradually placed in foster care, some capacity would be opened up at reception centres;
c) any young person presenting themselves as UASC could not be sent straight back to their country, even if their claim for asylum was felt not to be legitimate (ie if they were not taking refuge from war in their home country). As UASC, they automatically had the status of young people in care and the County Council was obliged to treat them as such;
d) reference was made to a House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report published on 3 August 2016, ‘Migration Crisis’, which had proved useful reading. A copy was passed to the Democratic Services Officer and it was agreed that a link to this document be sent to all Members of this Committee;
e) a difficulty of any dispersal scheme was the need to consider the impact upon a child of separating them from others with whom they shared cultural links and the resultant risk of them being left with no cultural support network;
f) dealing with the core of longer-standing cases would raise a different set of issues from those raised by dealing with monthly new arrivals;
g) in response to a question about the checking or vetting which would be done in respect of a family which a newly-arrived child was aiming to join, Mr Ireland explained that the duty to check and verify family details fell to the immigration authority rather than to any individual local council. If there was any doubt about a family’s ability to look after a child well, a referral would be made by the immigration authority to the local authority in which the family was resident; and
h) as it had not been possible to record the detailed information given by Mr Oakford and Mr Ireland, a request was made for a detailed written update to be sent to all Members so they would have the information for future reference. Mr Ireland undertook to do this, but reminded Members of the speed at which the situation changed from day to day and week to week.
(the meeting was able to be webcast from this point)
4. Mr G K Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, gave a verbal update on the following children’s public health issues:
Community Pharmacies – the Minister responsible for pharmacies had announced that the changes proposed to pharmacy funding would not now take place in October 2016, as planned, but would be delayed to ensure that the correct decision was made.
Child Obesity Plan – this had been published in August 2016 and included such measures to address childhood obesity as a levy on sugary drinks, an ambitious programme to reduce the level of sugar on food and drink by at least 20% by 2010, and measures to address school-based physical activity and healthier food.
Parliamentary Select Committee report on Public Health post-2013 – this had been published on 1 September 2016 and had been largely positive about progress since local authorities had taken over the public health function in April 2013. It raised concerns about addressing variation and inconsistencies between authorities, for example, in data sharing, and about reduced funding.
Children’s Commissioner – public health issues would be included in the planned meetings with the Children’s Commissioner which were to take place in the near future, to discuss UASC and other issues.
10 October World Mental Health Day – a range of activities would be taking place, both locally and nationally, to mark this, and details of local activities could be made available to local Members, upon request.
Local Government Association Community Wellbeing Board - Mr Gibbens reported that he was now a member of this Board.
5. Mr A Scott-Clark, Director of Public Health, then gave a verbal update on the following children’s public health issues:
Measles – although local authorities were not directly accountable for the measles vaccination programme (this being run by NHS England and Public Health England), the County Council did have an assurance role. There had recently been some cases in Kent and South East London, which may have been a result of the reduction in the take-up of the MMR vaccine.
6. The Chairman added that the County Council’s Adoption partner, Coram, was holding a conference on issues around education and adopted children and young people on 7 October, and encouraged all Members of the Committee to attend if they were able to.
7. RESOLVED that the verbal updates be noted, with thanks.
The Chairman thanked the officers who had worked on restoring the recording and webcasting facilities.