The Motion, as printed in the Agenda was proposed by Councillor Spillman and seconded by Councillor Duffin. The Motion read as follows:

Thurrock Council can place families in temporary accommodation outside the borough.  In cases of families with children, who are subsequently found to be intentionally homeless, the Council would not then have a statutory duty under the Children's Act to process a social care assessment for such children.

That statutory duty would instead reside with the Council in which they have been placed. This is the case no matter how long the families may have previously lived within the borough.

This Chamber calls on Thurrock Council Children Services to accept a non-statutory duty to such children whose family have been placed in temporary accommodation outside the borough.

Councillor Spillman stated that Thurrock’s children formed part of the Thurrock family and should not be abandoned and that it should be the statutory duty of Thurrock to process assessments for those children that had been placed outside the borough.

Councillor S Little stated that she would have been happy to have discussed this Motion or any individual cases with Councillor Spillman beforehand. Councillor S Little would not be supporting the Motion from a Children’s Services point of view as this was not a statutory duty of Thurrock if a child was not placed in the borough. Councillor S Little explained that if a Thurrock child was to be placed outside the borough it would be that authority that would take the responsibility for that child.

Councillor Halden stated as Portfolio Holder for Education he had sympathy with Councillor Spillman’s motion that schooling was paramount and that every child should go to school. Councillor Halden would not be supporting the Motion as the Children’s Act was in place and that local authorities should not cut across each other. Councillor Halden would be happy to discuss any individual cases with Councillor Spillman outside of the meeting.

Councillor Okunade stated that as Chair to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and her involvement in Corporate Parenting that it was paramount that no child should suffer and that Members should be assured that authorities have the right processes in place. Based on this Councillor Okunade would be unable to support the Motion.

Councillor Gledhill stated that it was the statutory duty of every local authority to look after the children in their locality so as to avoid any duplication of effort. Councillor Gledhill also stated that the processes for Thurrock residents who became intentionally homeless had to be addressed.

Councillor Cherry stated that as Corporate Parents, Members must have a continued interest in Thurrock children placed outside the borough in the hope that a child may one day return to the borough. Likewise their extended family would most likely remain in Thurrock. Members needed an active interest that all other authorities were doing the right thing for the child.

Councillor Duffin stated that this should not be about finance but about the best care and support Thurrock children get in or outside the borough.

Councillor Spillman summed up by stating that this was an opportunity to protect the children of Thurrock and not abandon them in their time of need.

The Mayor called a vote on the Motion.

Upon being put to the vote, 15 Members voted in favour of the Motion with 25 Members against, whereupon the Mayor declared the Amendment lost.

The Mayor declared the Motion Lost.