Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member Children, Young People & Learning, Councillor Alisa Flemming

Officer: Interim Executive Director Children, Families & Education, Debbie Jones

Key decision: no

The Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Cabinet to make the following decisions:

RESOLVED: To

1.     Note the actions to secure support from central government and from London boroughs to relieve the disproportionate costs of care and support for unaccompanied children and young people incurred by the residents of Croydon.  

2.     Note the significant budget gap of £13.278 million forecast over 2021-24 despite the above actions.

3.     Note the additional impact this will have on the council’s borrowing from the government, including additional interest.

4.     Recommend this report for review and challenge at the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

5.     Note that the council reserves the right to take further action to address the issues set out in the report.

The Cabinet Member for Children Young People & Learning (Councillor Alisa Flemming) informed Members that the report set out the issues facing the council in terms of addressing the cost of care and support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people (UASC) in Croydon.

The Cabinet Member stressed that the borough was proud of the richness in cultural diversity within Croydon. Furthermore the council was proud of the support it provided to UASC; many of whom, it was recognised, had overcome great danger and adversity to come to the country. However, given the location of the Home Office at Lunar House there was a national point of entry for UASC within the borough. It was noted that for many years Croydon had been forced to bear and extremely large proportion of the nation’s costs for caring for those children and young people.

Members were advised that there were 458 young people in care and 322 care leavers in the borough and in addition there were the USAC, of which Croydon should have around 65 but the figure stood at 205. This had created substantial financial pressures which were estimated to be worth £7.6 million in 2020/21. It was recognised that the pressures were not new but were growing year on year due to the number of care leavers.

The Report in the Public Interest (RIPI) had acknowledged that the council had lobbied the Home Office on the issue of proper financial reimbursement and that whilst financial redress had been provided, it had not been sufficient.

The Cabinet Member further highlighted that the impact of the National Transfer Scheme, which was a voluntary scheme, had left Croydon with three times the number of asylum seeking children than the scheme suggested the borough should have. Furthermore, it was highlighted that around 50% of care leavers in the borough were asylum seeking young people.

Member’s attention was brought to the budget forecast estimating a gap in excess of £13m from 2021 to 2024, despite the mitigations which had already been put in place. In light of the concerns highlighted in the report the Cabinet Member requested that Scrutiny consider the report.

The Cabinet Member highlighted that the report set out that the council reserved the right to take further action, should it be required, and noted that Kent County Council was challenging the Home Office on a similar matter as it was also struggling with the financial burden and to deliver services safely.

Thanks were given to the Interim Director of Improvement & Quality (Kerry Crichlow), the Interim Executive Director Children, Families & Education (Debbie Jones), the Interim Chief Executive (Katherine Kerswell) and the Improvement & Assurance Panel for all their work to try to address the budget gap. Additionally, the Cabinet Member thanked the 24 London boroughs who had agreed to relieve some of the pressure facing Croydon for a period of three months whilst a long term solution was formed.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Hamida Ali) echoed the thanks to given to all those who had worked in the development report. The council was proud of the support it had provided but it was stressed that it was important that the authority was properly resourced. It was noted that the government’s policy was underpinned by the National Transfer Scheme which was not working due to the voluntary nature. Whilst Croydon was ready to continue to support young people; having established considerable specialism and expertise within the organisation; proper financial redress was required. The 24 London boroughs were thanked for their support, but the Leader highlighted that London was providing support disproportionately to the rest of the country and that a national solution was required.

The Cabinet Member for Resources & Financial Governance (Councillor Callton Young) stated his support for the report as it was integral that a solution was found which shared the financial burden that was experienced by the borough. Whilst the children and young people were welcomed, it was stressed that it was important that the council was able to support them properly and safely.

The work officer and the Cabinet Member were commended by the Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal (Councillor Stuart King) as it was noted that tit was an incredibly challenging position for the council. Whilst the financial pressures were significant, the moral duties to some of the most vulnerable residents of the borough were great. The Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal queried whether there was an update on the accommodation strategy mentioned at paragraph 6.5 of the report. Caution was suggested by the Cabinet Member also in terms of paragraph 9.2 as it was noted that this could be perceived to be similar to the language by the council previously which had been criticised by Grant Thornton in the RIPI which had suggested that there had been an overreliance on lobbying government rather than working to drive costs down.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Children Young People & Learning stated that part of the rapid review had looked at the average costs for accommodation. The review had found that costs were on par, particularly for those in foster placements. Whilst the review had found there was value for money, the Cabinet Member stressed that the funding gap needed to be addressed to enable the delivery of service safely.

The quality of care provided by Croydon for its UASC residents was highlighted by the Interim Executive Director as an area she had always been impressed with, even when working elsewhere. Members were advised that the council cared for around three times the number of young people it should support if the national formula of 0.07% was taken into account. It was noted that this disproportionate number had a disproportionate impact on the council which could not be absorbed.

Members were advised that a significant amount of work had been undertaken, including financial modelling which evidenced value for money. Whilst the council were able to demonstrate the costs of USAC was less than local young people, the Interim Executive Director advised that when a council was caring for that volume of young people additional costs were incurred elsewhere in the system, such as foster care; most asylum seeking children were cared for through in-house foster carers but that led to other young people being placed in independent foster care.

Members were advised that whilst a lot of work was being undertaken, such as within the Medium Term Financial Strategy, it was recognised more could be done. A report was being written which set out the additional pressures being borne due to the volume of care leavers and work had been undertaken with other boroughs in relation to the commissioning of placements.

The Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration (Councillor Oliver Lewis) noted that the young people being discussed were some of the most vulnerable in the world and the care for them often fell to Croydon when there should have been a national solution. The Cabinet Member called for the government to take responsibility and implement a proper system which meant the spread of young people was even across the country or properly resources councils, such as Croydon, to provide the care.

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Learning (Councillor Helen Redfern) stated that she had previously requested a detailed breakdown of the costs the council was requesting, which she felt were missing from the report and so questioned the value of taking the report to consider at Scrutiny. It was noted that the Chair of the Improvement & Assurance Panel, Tony McArdle, had said that the council should not do more than it needed to and to that end the Shadow Cabinet Member stated that benchmarking on a per capita basis would be beneficial.

It was suggested by the Shadow Cabinet Member that should the council make a case to the government to reimburse the costs then it was important that the council was able to demonstrate that it was not part of the problem. The offer of the Panel acting as broker was welcomed, however the Shadow Cabinet Member suggested that Kent County Council was acting to resolve its situation itself and so queried why Croydon had taken a passive approach.

The Leader stated that it was unfortunate that the Shadow Cabinet Member had departed from the cross-party position held in Croydon that a solution to the issue was required. Furthermore, the Cabinet Member advised Cabinet that the Shadow Cabinet Member had been privy to the information she requested. It was stated that the matter had been discussed at meetings of the Corporate Parenting Panel, which the Shadow Cabinet Member was a member of, at scrutiny meetings and meetings of the General Purposes & Audit Committee. The Cabinet Member stressed that the information was in the public domain, however offered that should be further information required then the Shadow Cabinet should request the information directly.

It was highlighted by the Cabinet Member that there had previously always been a cross-party consensus on the matter and queried the Shadow Cabinet Member’s assertion that the council had been passive and stated that she felt that it should be embarrassing that a conservative council was seeking legal redress from the government. She called on the Opposition Group to join with the Administration to call for a long term solution and to write to Croydon South MP, Chris Philp, who was a Home Office Minister for a solution, such as financial redress or making the transfer scheme mandatory.

The Leader noted that the report reflected an important and complex situation in terms of the support provided to the most vulnerable people in the world. Whilst the council was proud of the support it had provided, it was stressed that the situation was not sustainable.

The Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Cabinet to make the following decisions:

RESOLVED: To

1.    Note the actions to secure support from central government and from London boroughs to relieve the disproportionate costs of care and support for unaccompanied children and young people incurred by the residents of Croydon.  

2.    Note the significant budget gap of £13.278 million forecast over 2021-24 despite the above actions.

3.    Note the additional impact this will have on the council’s borrowing from the government, including additional interest.

4.    Recommend this report for review and challenge at the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

5.    Note that the council reserves the right to take further action to address the issues set out in the report.