This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC): Care Leaver Funding Shortfall 2018-19

    Minutes:

    Mr Gough, Cabinet Member for Children’ Young People and Education and Sarah Hammond, Director of Specialist Children’s Services were present for this item.

     

    1.            Mr Gough referred to a previous question about the numbers of UASC in Kent and what was the composition of the young people.  This began in 2015 when there was a large inflow, this number has since diminished. The number of referrals in 2015 was 948, there had been an overall reduction in Asylum Seekers across Europe and a reduction of numbers coming into Kent since that time, with 388 in 2016 and 214 in 2017.  Overall during 2018 there were 172 referrals, this had picked up slightly at the end of 2018 but numbers were below that seen previously. 315 young people were transferred out of Kent under the National Transfer Scheme, meanwhile many of the young people who remained turned 18 and some 21.  There were currently 248 UASC in care and 911 care leavers.  The shortfall between the costs to support UASC and the funding grant was an issue which had been running for many years.  The largest funding gap was for care leavers, the key issues being a large cohort whose status had not yet been determined, and the second being the period during which KCC had duties to care leavers being extended by legislation from 21 to 25years.  The grant for this from the DfE was based on an assumption of between 11-15% of young people (for the total cohort) taking this up and in fact this had been around 100% for UASC (and 50% for citizen young people). 

     

    2.            Sarah Hammond explained that regarding under 18s, even if young people were refused asylum status they would be given leave to remain; they were lawfully allowed to remain in the country.  Regarding education, universities would offer places to anyone who was lawfully in the UK.  All care leavers were able to apply for grants because they were lawfully in the UK and the Council did not pay university fees because the students were able to access fees alongside other citizens.

     

    3.              In response to a question about travel costs (para 3.11 of the report) Sarah Hammond explained that claims had been submitted to the Home Office for the journeys that young people made to have their immigration interviews.  The view of the Home Office was that the grant that they received should include those costs, KCC’s view was that if young people were living in Shepway or Dover the costs to travel to London were disproportionate to those living in London and were able to access the main immigration centre in Croydon much more cheaply. 

     

    4.            Regarding interpreter costs any available aids and assistance available were used.  The challenge was that many meetings carried a large legal responsibility (age assessment, human rights assessment for example) and it was critical both for the young people and for the social workers that there was no window of doubt about what a young person was saying or what they meant and for that reason the Council had to use trained and accredited interpreters. All interpreters were accessed through the Council’s managed service but the majority travelled from outside of Kent County, so the council was also paying their travel costs.

     

    5.            Regarding Legal Costs, the most common legal challenge was around age, there was significant financial cost to defend court cases.  A small number of individuals challenged human rights assessments. 

     

    6.            A Member asked how much focus our MPs had given to this issue, Mr Gough explained that there had been and still was constant engagement with MPs and they were very aware of the issues.  The challenge was with the Home Office who had yet to resolve the issues with the Treasury. 

     

    7.            In response to a question Ms Hammond explained that there were around 10 key languages spoken by young people that the Council worked with on a regular basis.  There was a small middle eastern region cohort of Kent residents who were now fluent in English and had become authorised interpreters.  Responding to a comment Sarah Hammond confirmed that the Council was constantly identifying young mentors who had learnt to speak English well.  Some ex-care leavers in their late 20s and early 30s who had been able to become qualified and accredited to undertake the interpreter role. 

     

    8.            Sarah Hammond, in response to a question, explained that the ability of the young people to learn English was extraordinary, the Council had held a number of events where young people were present which Members were invited to.  The Council had a moral duty to these young people not to provide a second class services and in addition the law prevented the Council from doing so.  Mr Gough explained that the Council had a duty to provide services up to the age of services, however the funding was based on the assumption that only a small proportion of young people would take up these services, which is where the funding problems arose. 

     

    9.            A Member commented on the high turnover of Immigration Ministers, which made this an even more difficult issue.  He asked if it would be helpful if all 12 MPs wrote a joint letter in support of the situation in Kent.  Mr Gough took this point on board, it was important to get the timing of this right. 

     

    10.         Members discussed the recommendation from the Committee, one Member suggested that this be strengthened to include reference to fairer funding for Kent, using lobbying powers and writing to MPs to resolve some of the financial issues that impacted upon the Council, the people who received these services and the residents and council tax payers of Kent. 

     

    11.         This was not supported by all Members and it was suggested that the CYPE Cabinet Committee take on some of these issues and investigate further.  Another Member did not consider that it was necessary to change the recommendation, the Cabinet Member and Officer had informed Scrutiny Members that there had been continuous lobbying for this funding to be proportionate.  There was not agreement on this, another Member considered it appropriate for the Scrutiny Committee to make a further recommendation and express a view to the Cabinet Member on funding issues.    Mr Gough commented that it would not be unwelcome if the Committee were to express a view that this is something that needed to be resolved. 

     

    12.         The Opposition Group Leader offered the Cabinet Member full support from his group and the Labour Group on these issues.

     

    13.           There was unanimous support for the resolution included below. 

     

    RESOLVED: Members were very grateful for the detailed and useful information provided by the Cabinet Member and Officer

     

    The Scrutiny Committee noted the report and would encourage the Cabinet Member and Officer to do all within their power to ensure full reimbursement of the costs involved and pursue the rapid resolution of the existing funding reviews.   

    Supporting documents: