Agenda item

Councillor Joe Caluori, Executive Member for Children and Families, provided an update to the Committee on his recent work. The Committee noted the procedure for Executive Member questions set out in the agenda and questioned the Executive Member on the following topics:

·         Councillor Picknell queried how Islington Council assessed the risk of abuse posed to unaccompanied asylum seeking children both prior to their arrival in the borough, and once they arrived. In response Councillor Caluori advised that there were two methods through which asylum seeking children came to the borough; some were allocated to the borough from the national asylum seeking unit in Croydon; whereas others presented themselves to the council, sometimes with an adult or a solicitor advocating on their behalf. The council collected information on asylum seeking children, particularly to identify the journey taken into the country and to assess if they had been trafficked. The majority were placed in foster care and all children were entitled to the full range of services available to looked after children in the borough. It was commented that Islington had recently received a steady arrival of Albanian children, the reasons for which were not clear as the borough did not have a historic Albanian community. As a result Albanian boys aged 14 to 17 comprised around 10% of the in-care population. Officers had noted that some of these children had given identical accounts of how they had travelled to the country and why they were seeking asylum and there was a concern that they were being brought to the country for illegitimate purposes. It was known that asylum seekers were being exploited to commit crime in other areas; for example young women had been trafficked to work in the sex industry in Manchester, and there were instances elsewhere of young men being brought to the country and coerced into organised crime. It was not known why the Albanian asylum seekers were arriving in Islington as opposed to other London boroughs; however it was possible that Islington was considered to be a better option than other boroughs; or the proximity to the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras could also be a factor. It was noted that the council had supported lobbying of the Attorney General to release detailed national data on crime committed by asylum seekers as this could help to identify the workings of international criminal networks, however to date this request had been refused. The Executive Member expressed concern that asylum seeking children were able to present themselves to the council without prior detection by the UK Border Agency.

·         Councillor Picknell queried what evidence suggested that the Pause programme would become self-funding. In response, it was advised that the Pause programme estimated that if 100 women were spread over five sites over a five year period with no intervention, they could potentially have 264 children removed into care at a cost of almost £20million. In contrast, the cost of running the programme was £9million, making the potential saving greater than the cost of the programme.

·         Councillor Picknell asked a supplementary question on the long-term effectiveness of the Pause programme. Councillor Caluori advised that there had been no pregnancies in the 18 month pilot period in Hackney, no pregnancies in the Islington trial to date, and that a national evaluation of the programme would be carried out in 2016.

·         Following a question from Councillor Ismail, Councillor Caluori confirmed that the Pause programme offered reversible contraception and did not affect a woman’s potential to have a family at a later date.

·         The Chair requested further information on the future of the Lough Road Centre for children and young people with severe and complex disabilities. Councillor Caluori advised that, following an extensive consultation, parents were not found to be supportive of the proposals as there was a degree of uncertainty over how different facilities may operate. It was advised that it was possible to co-design services due to the relatively small numbers of service users and the council would be seeking to work with parents before a final decision was made.

·         The Chair queried the composition of the Personnel Sub-Committee due to consider applications to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services role, and in particular why no women were members of the Sub-Committee. The Executive Member advised that he was also frustrated by the composition of the Sub-Committee, however no way could be found to incorporate women within the agreed governance arrangements. The Executive Member agreed that an all-male appointment panel was not best practice, and commented that the appointment process also involved interviews with head teachers, young people, and an informal evening event to which members of the committee were invited. The Committee resolved that their disappointment with the composition of the Sub-Committee be formally recorded.

·         A member of the public queried the performance of schools in achieving the council’s target of 40% energy reduction by 2020. Councillor Caluori advised that he did not have figures to hand however a response could be provided outside of the meeting.

·         A member of the public noted that the revised equality objectives agreed by the Executive in July 2015 did not include the continued monitoring of the GCSE results of BME pupils, and requested details of the latest GCSE results of BME pupils. Councillor Caluori advised that he did not have figures to hand however a response could be provided outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the procedure for Executive Member questions be agreed; and

2)    That the Committee’s disappointment with the all-male composition of the Personnel Sub-Committee be noted.