Agenda item

The Head of Corporate Parenting submits a report to provide an overview of children seeking safety who come to Leicester as Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children.

Members recommendations:

The Children Young People and Education Scrutiny Commission are asked to note the information in the report.  

The Head of Corporate Parenting submitted a report to provide an overview of

children seeking safety (CSS) who come to Leicester as Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children and gave a presentation using the slides attached with the agenda.

The Deputy City Mayor for Social Care, Health and Community Safety introduced the report noting that the report needed to be considered as part of the broader issue of new arrivals into the city.  She further stressed that it was important to consider children and young people seeking safety who were seeking support from organisations other than the local authority.

Key points included:

• The report focussed on CSS that the Local Authority were responsible for.  This did not include those arriving with their families.  There were 38 Children Looked After (CLA) who were CSS from abroad in the context of approximately 600 CLA.  Additionally, there were 64 care leavers from abroad who had previously been CLA but were now being supported by the Local Authority as care leavers.  This was in the context of approximately 300 care leavers in total.
• These children were vulnerable by definition and had come to the authority through a range of routes.  The three main routes through which CSS came to the Council were:

1)    The National Transfer Scheme (NTS)– this was based on a formula of 0.1% of the overall child population of the city.  This was the most-used route and the Council did not have control over the rate of transfer.  The rate of CSS coming into the city varied each month.

2)    CSS who came unaccompanied and had been placed in hotels designated by the Home Office.  Within this group there may have been people who came as adults and subsequently presented as children.  This raised the wider issue of age verification which was a complex and costly process.

3)    Spontaneous arrivals.  These were a small number andmay have arrived from other parts of the UK or neighbouring local authorities.

• There was seasonal fluctuation in the number of arrivals.  This was in part to do with certain migrant routes being preferable during the summer.
• In terms of age profile, CSS were predominantly older adolescents aged 16-17.  Care leavers were eligible for support up to the age of 25.  Most were male with only one female CLA from abroad seeking safety.
• The Local Authority had responsibility for CSS as corporate parents.  A comprehensive package of support was offered in accordance with a pledge to all CLA and care leavers.
• In terms of nationality, most CSS were from countries in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan.  In terms of heritage, many were of Kurdish origin.
• Numbers coming through the National Transfer Scheme could be larger as the city was not yet near to its designated upper limit.  This was important to note in terms of resource implications and future planning.
• Other authorities placed CSS into Leicester.  This diminished the ability of the Council to place their CLA and CSS as close as possible to the city.
• Leicester had a reputation as a City of Sanctuary which attracted these young people seeking safety.
• The Council were responsible for accommodation for these young people.  A small number were in foster care, a very small number wereliving in children’s homes and many were in supported living.  There were pressures over access to suitable and timely accommodation.
• The Council were part of regional arrangements for CSS from Abroad.
• In terms of age assessments, when arrivals presented as adults and then as children, there was a comprehensive process of age verification.  The responsibility for this lay with the Council.  This process involved two social workers with independent social workers and translators and as such was resource intensive.  There were currently eight people going through the process.
• There were a number of young people awaitingdecisions from the Home Office on their legal status and right to remain at any given time.  In this period, they could be very vulnerable as they did not have recourse to public funds and decisions could take several years.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• In terms of funding form the Home Office, the Council received £143 per night per child up until the age of 18.
• There was no duty for other Local Authorities to notify the Council when CSS were placed or move to Leicester.  As such the Council relied on collaborative working.  Many of the number came from the nearest Local Authorities, but the full numbers were not known.  There were many more CSS and care leavers in the city than those the council was responsible for.
• A care leaver had made a film for people arriving in the city which highlighted the communities in Leicester.
• Financial implications were a live discussion. In terms of forecasts on current numbers, the full NTS quota had not been reached and as such numbers could potentially double.  Additionally, CSS were supported by the voluntary sector as well as by the Council.  Therefore, there was not an accurate figure, but there was discussion about how to prepare for forward projection.
• In terms of a joined-up approach, work was being undertaken with Housing regarding pressures in housing in terms of demand. This was processed through Children’s services joint working with Housing.  Within this work there was additional support for children and young people from abroad.  In addition to this, there was a very strong virtual school team who worked with children from abroad as well as the Council’s advice and guidance services.
• The progression and attainment of children from abroad was tracked through education.
• Arts and sports in the city were worked with, including Leicester City FC as softer elements of support to help young people feel settled and integrated.
• It was noted that Leicester were early voluntary adopters of the National Transfer Scheme within the East Midlands, and this was to the council’s credit.  

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That the Commission be kept updated of any developments.