The report was presented by Luke Froment.

The Chair applauded the hard work that the service undertook. Noting the interviews that took place with Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC), he asked if they were questioned on why the UK was their chosen destination. Luke Froment explained that UASC tended to leave their country of origin for a number of reasons that included safety. He said that many UASC came to the UK to feel safer and that some experienced long journeys to get to the UK. On those long journeys, there were risks of abuse and exploitation and it was not usual practice for the service to question why UASC chose the UK as their destination. They did not always have a choice and their focus would be more on survival rather than choice.

Councillor Ralph asked whether UK agencies checked up on UASC and what their situations were during their stay in the UK. Luke Froment explained that the Local Authority’s (LA) role was to ensure the safety of UASC. The LA had been involved in some cases where UASC had gone missing for long periods of time and became known to the LA again as part of a police investigation.

Noting the number of accepted return home interviews for missing UASC, Councillor Okunade asked what reasons were given for UASC going missing. She said that future reports needed to give more detail to explain why UASC went missing instead of showing 7 accepted the return home interviews. She also asked if the budget for UASC was funded by government. Luke Froment answered that there were a number of reasons why UASC went missing and the length of time they went missing for varied. He explained that the reasons were individualised. In regards to the budget for UASC, he said that the LA received grants from the government towards holding UASC in the borough but this funding was not enough to fully cover the work that the service undertook. Janet Simon added that the large majority of UASC did not go missing. She explained that some reasons for going missing was because the older teens may wish to go out to socialise with friends and come back later than expected. She said that the vast majority of UASC stayed in their placements and did well.

Referring to the UASC missing episodes, the Vice-Chair queried whether the service had noticed any patterns and if these were looked into in detail. Luke Froment replied that patterns were noticed when UASC in particular parts of the world went missing. When UASC went missing, the service had robust procedures that were followed and worked with the police and other agencies to try to locate missing UASC quickly. They were also checked against Home Office records to see if missing UASC had also presented as missing in other local authorities. If a UASC was located, the service would work with them to support them in Thurrock.

The Vice-Chair sought clarification on the procedure that was undertaken if a missing young person passed the age of 19 years old during their missing episode. Luke Froment explained that cases of missing UASC at 18 years old were allocated to the aftercare service who also attended meetings to locate missing UASC. The process would be to offer them support if they were located.

Councillor Ralph asked why return home interviews were offered and not required. Luke Froment answered that return home interviews were conducted by an independent and separate organisation to the service. Children did not know the organisation so may not be willing to undertake the interview. Where a child did not want to take the interview, other methods used included the child’s social worker having a conversation with them instead.

RESOLVED:

1.         That Members of the Committee noted the work of officers in relation to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children presenting to Thurrock.

2.         Members are aware Corporate Parenting Responsibilities extend to UASC.